PRICE. 50 CENTS. 



RAILWAY DIGEST 

-AND- 

HAND BOOK 


-FOR THE- 






















DIRECT THROUGH LINE 

Chicago to Denver! 

CHICAGO to OMAHA, 

CHICAGO to KANSAS CITY, 

ST. LOUIS to OMAHA, 

KANSAS CITY to OMAHA. 


This is the only through line—owning its own road entire—from Chicago to 
Denver, and is the Short Dine between these points hy more than 30 miles. It 
is also the only line running directly through 

DENVER and SALT LAKE CITY 

EN ROUTE TO 

SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES, 

AND ALL CALIFORNIA POINTS. 


PAUL MORTON, A. C. DAWES, P. S. EUSTIS, 

G. P. & T. A., C. B. & Q. R. R. G. P. A., H. & St. J. R. R. G. P. & T. A., B. & M. R. R. R. 

CHICAGO, ILL. ST. JOSEPH, MO. OMAHA, NEB. 







CLARK'S 


RAILWAY DIGEST 


SECOND EDITION. 


A Practical Hand-Book 


Valuable Information 


9 




STATION SERVICE. 


-<P°v F 4 0 ^ 

By L. A. CLARK. DEC 27 1886' >jn , 

V/x ^ {% r 


UIZM- 


Chas. N. Trivess, Printer, Chicago. 
1886. 








\ 


COPYRIGHT, 1886 , 
By L. A. Clark. 



PREFACE. 


The many complimentary testimonials the first edition of this work re¬ 
ceived from railway men of all departments of the service, and the marked 
favor with which it was received, especially by those engaged in the station 
service, have encouraged the author to prepare this Second Edition in the 
hope of rendering some additional aid particularly to the railway station 
service of America. 

The Eules of General Application have been compiled from the rules in 
force upon about ninety per cent, of the railway mileage of the United 
States. 

The Legal Department has been subjected to several revisions that im¬ 
portant decisions only be reported .and those only having direct bearing 
upon the station service, this enabling the em ploye to act legally in legal 
matter and both protect the interests of his employers and of himself. 

Eailway cases generally involve large sums of money. An agent in ig¬ 
norance of the legal rights of his company in his business transactions and 
the limits of liability as between the company and the public, may precipi¬ 
tate a legal controversy. His plea of ignorance would neither be enter¬ 
tained in a court nor excused by his superior officers. The author submits 
this second edition of the Digest hoping that it may prove as acceptable 
and beneficial to those for whom it is prepared as did the former. 

L. A. CLAEK. 


3 




RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION. 


All agents should be polite and considerate in their intercourse with the 
public. The reputation and prosperity of the company depend, to a great 
extent, upon the manner in which the public are treated by employes. 

Maintain good temper under all circumstances. Should a party for any 
cause, real or imaginary, abuse you, endeavor to convince him of his error; 
failing in this keep quiet; in after hours his will be the feelings of regret, 
not yours. 

In dealing with the public the interests of the company should be the 
first object of consideration, but strict justice and honor should be main¬ 
tained. 

Agents should keep all books and accounts neatly and promptly written 
up, which should never be exhibited to the public, but open to inspection 
of the proper officers of the company only. 

Agents should consider it their duty to not only forward and deliver 
freight that originates through the ordinary channels of transportation of 
local trade, but to encourage by personal efforts, the shipment of freight 
over the line to and from their stations, keeping thoroughly posted as to 
the business of the vicinity and general freight agent advised of all mat¬ 
ters calculated to affect the revenue arising from his department. The bus¬ 
iness of a freight department of a railroad is to carry such property that 
is properly the subject of transportation on or in freight cars. 

Property is received for transportation only on terms and conditions 
specified in tariffs and classifications of general rules of the railroad. If 
the shippers refuse to comply with the same agents should decline to re¬ 
ceive their property for transportation and notify the division or general 
freight agent of the fact. 

The company does not agree to carry property by* any particular train 
or any time for any particular market but should forward it with as reason- 
able despatch as the general business will permit. 

Gold or silver, any kind manufactured articles of gold or silver, as jew¬ 
els, watches, drafts, bank bills, notes, deeds, mail matter or valuable paper 
of any kind, are not received for transportation on any terms. 

Goods in paper bundles or boxes should not be received for transporta¬ 
tion. Property in second hand boxes or barrels should not be received 
for shipment unless the original marks are erased. 


o 


6 


When wagons or carriages not boxed are shipped, agents should be 
careful to see that no articles such as cushions, harness or whips are left with 
them. Such articles should be boxed. 

Grain, fruit, or vegetables should not be shipped in bulk except in full 
car loads. 

Articles received for transportation should be properly packed, as the 
railroad company will not be responsible for the loss or damage resulting 
from careless or improper packing which does not occur from negligence of 
its employees. 

Every package should be plainly marked with name or shipping mark 
of consignee, destination, including state or territory. 

In shipments less than car loads consisting of several articles or 
packages, as household goods, furniture, etc., each separate article or 
package should be properly marked and an accurate list of same furnished 
by shippers. 

Marking with chalk or with paper labels or with initials only, is not suf¬ 
ficient. 

Less than car loads shipments of articles such as flour, wool, cotton, 
rags, iron or other articles which cannot be fully marked with name of con¬ 
signee and destination, which are liable to be mixed with other consignments 
of same character, should be so marked or numbered that each package of 
consignment could be easily recognized. 

Shipping receipts in duplicate are required for each shipment or con¬ 
signment stating the number of packages, weight and description of each 
package, articles shipped, name of consignee, destination, name of station at 
which it is to be left. If any particular route is desired beyond the line of 
the road originating, it should be designated on the receipt, the original be 
signed by agent of the company, duplicate or copy be retained by agent as 
his authority for shipping property. 

The company is not liable for leakage of oils, or any kind of liquids, 
breakage of any glass, earthen or queensware, injury to or breakage of 
looking-glasses, glass show-cases, picture-frames, carboys of acids, or arti¬ 
cles packed in glass, stoves and stove-furniture, castings, hollow ware, ma¬ 
chinery and carriage-furniture, musical instruments of any kind, packages 
of eggs, nor for rust of iron, and for iron articles, nor for the loss in weight 
or otherwise in grain, coffee in bags, or rice in tierces, nor for condition of 
baling on hay, hemp or cotton, nor for loss of nuts in bags, or of lemons 
or oranges in boxes, nor for losses or damage of any kind on any articles 
whose bulk requires it to be carried or which is usually or by agreement 
carried on open cars, nor for damage to perishable property of any kind 
occasioned by delay of shipment for any cause, or by change of the weather, 
nor for loss or damage to any articles or loss to any property or article 
whatever by fire or any other casualty while in transit or while in depots 
or places of transhipment, or at depots or landings at point of delivery, nor 
for loss or damage caused by delays from storms, accidents, or other un- 


7 


avoidable causes, nor for damage to any articles arising from effects of heat 
or cold, nor for damages to the hidden contents of packages, nor for a de¬ 
ficiency of drygoods, boots, shoes, hats, caps, or straw goods, unless pack¬ 
ages are properly strapped when shipped; unless, first: It is clearly 
shown that the loss or damage was caused through carelessness of the 
servants of the railroad company, or, second : Unless such freight dam¬ 
aged or receipted for and forwarded was at company’s risk. 

The company is not responsible for wrong delivery, loss or damage 
which might have been avoided by skillful or sufficient marking or packing 
which occurs without the negligence of the company or their agent. 

The company is not responsible for the delivery of property at points 
off their road or for the loss or damage which may occur to such property 
after the same has been delivered to connecting line. 

Agents are not authorized to give credit. 

Cars at a station, containing freight, should be kept locked. 

The use of pencil on business papers or documents should be avoided. 

No part of a consignment should be delivered until charges are paid on 
the whole. Agents should in all cases write the name of their station in 
full at the head of expense-bills and receipts. 

Allow no one unauthorized, to have access to, or receive information 
from your books, accounts, or correspondence. 

An agent should never allow his station dating-stamp to remain ex¬ 
posed when not in use, but keep the same under lock. 

Freight is always taken subject to the company’s weight, and subject 
to charges for re-packing, or cooperage, if necessary. 

Company property should be billed to some employe of the company, 
and handled with as much care as commercial freight. 

It is in error to undertake, or agree, to carry property by any particu¬ 
lar train, or to make delivery at any particular time. 

Companies are not responsible for the loss of freight erroneously billed; 
as cigars, powder, matches, etc., shipped as drygoods. 

Agents are responsible for all freight, from the time of its receipt at 
their warehouse, until delivered, or forwarded, as the case may be. 

Companies are not responsible for damages to, or shortage of, any ar¬ 
ticle discovered after the same has been recipted for, and removed from the 
warehouse. 

If agent, in checking freight at a way-station, discovers a shortage, the 
fact should be plainly noted on way-bill, showing seals, etc., and signed by 
the conductor. 

An agent should leave his station accounts, at the close of the day’s 
business, in such condition that a successor, if necessary, could open busi¬ 
ness on the morrow, and proceed intelligently in the discharge of duties. 

No agent should agree to furnish cars for live-stock, grain, or other 
freight, at any specified time, but should make requisition for cars in the 


8 


order in which shippers have applied for them ; and when received, dis¬ 
tribute them in like manner. 

The improper marking of goods is the source of much annoyance and 
expense to companies. The names of consignees, the destination, in full, 
should be plainly marked on all packages, unless otherwise provided for, 
and all old marks should be completely erased. 

Require pre-payment on all freight not clearly worth charges at forced 
sale; and, as a rule, decline to advance on freight to be forwarded, unless 
the same is the legitimate charges of a connecting line; even in this, great 
care should be exercised. 

Agents should not allow shippers to load a defective car, nor an amount 
in excess of maximum capacity of car ; in a violation of either, the defect 
should be repaired, or excess removed before forwarding, as a matter of 
protection to the company. 

When necessary on account of bulk to forward any article on open or 
flat cars, the company will not be responsible for loss or damage caused by 
fire, wet, falling off the cars, or otherwise. Property liable to damage by 
weather should not be shipped on open cars except at the request of the 
shipper or owner, and entirely at his risk. Receipt should so state. 

Shippers delivering property for transportation on which two classifi¬ 
cations are made—one at “ Owner’s Risk,” and one at “ Company’s Risk ”— 
such as stoves, stove-plates, castings, glazed sash, marble, etc., should in¬ 
sert in the receipt before it is signed the words, “ Owner’s Risk,” or “ Com¬ 
pany’s Risk,” as the case may be. Agents should not do this, but it should be 
done by shipper, that there may be a distinct understanding as to who 
takes risk of breaks and damages. Many articles are classified at “Owner’s 
Risk,” or “Released,” and no provisions ar6 made for such articles at com¬ 
pany’s risk. 

Consignors who wish their property shipped at an agreed valuation as 
specified in classification, should so mark their receipts. 

Forwarding agents are held responsible for guarantees. When proper¬ 
ty on which charges must be guaranteed is received from another road, 
agents should require guarantees of such connecting line, and should not 
accept that from original shipper alone. All guarantees should be in 
writing, and in duplicate—original sent to general freight agent or freight 
auditor, as the rule of the company may provide. 

Agents should examine cars loaded at or for their stations, and ascer¬ 
tain if the contents are as represented. When they have reason to think that 
the contents of packages are not properly described or billed, they should 
satisfy themselves by personal inspection, opening the packages, if neces¬ 
sary, in the presence of witnesses. If found to be falsely represented, 
make corrections accordingly. 

When shipping receipt calls for more freight than is delivered for 
transportation—thus: Receipt calls for 4, but only 3 are delivered:_ 

a.—If from a connecting line, receipt for full amount with note of 


9 


shortage, thus—“4(1 short).” Weight and charges to be as connecting 
line gives them—say, for example, lOOtbs., 75c. 

Bill thus—“4, (1 short) lOOlbs., 75c.” 

b .—If not from a connecting line, receipt for and bill actual quantity, 
and actual weight, erasing in ink* the erroneous figures on the receipt and 
inserting correct ones. 

Before you sign a receipt, see that it is properly filled out, and draw 
your pen through the blank space, so that nothing additional can be in¬ 
serted after it is signed. 

Do not receipt for or bill any property as “Mdse.,” “Merchandise,” or 
“ Castings,” but describe the freight'fully enough to denote what it is, and 
how it should be classified. The weight of each class should be stated 
separately. If castings, the article to which they belong, as threshing ma¬ 
chine, stove, etc., must be specified. 

Before making way-bill examine duplicate receipt or shipping order, 
and see that it shows a clear and plain record of checking into the car. 
When found correct in every particular, make way-bill strictly in accordance 
therewith. Everything on the receipt which affects the rate or condition of 
shipment, as well as a full description of property, including marks and 
brands, should be shown on the way-bill. 

When property in loaded cars received at your station is transfered in 
other cars, note in ink on way-bill number of car to which and the station at 
which such property is transferred, and sign your name in full. Tally the- 
freight plainly on the way-bills and note any differences. When it is necessary 
to transfer freight to another car, and to rebill the same, note on way-bill 
the number, initial, and description of car from which, and reason why 
transferred. 

All transfers must be noted on way bills so that original car number can 
be known as well as intermediate transfer. 

Tracers for lost freight should receive prompt attention. Before 
making answer, agents should thoroughly examine the premises and defin¬ 
itely ascertain whether the freight is in their possession. 

When parties in charge of stock unload it “en route” for feeding or oth¬ 
er purposes and animals are left out of the car on account of being crippled 
or dead, notation should be made in ink on face of way bill, naming station 
at which such animals are taken out, in order that receiving agents may know 
whether or not a shortage occurs when animals do not check out as 
billed. 

Agents should send notice, either by mail or messenger, to consignee 
promptly on arrival of freight, but not before, and be careful that the notice 
states the correct amount due the company. The record of this should be 
kept for future reference. While agents are expected to treat all parties 
with courtesy and extend to them all facilities and accommodations for tran¬ 
sacting their business, they should not assume th.e slightest risk, but retain 


10 


such control of business as will render the company perfectly safe from 
loss. 

Freight should be delivered only to the consignee or on his written or¬ 
der, which must be carefully preserved. If agents are ordered by shippers 
not to deliver property to consignees, they will hold the same and ask gen¬ 
eral freight agent for instructions. 

Agents should turn over freight to connecting lines when so consigned, 
as soon after arrival as practicable and should use all proper means to induce 
parties to take away their freight within 24 hours after its arrival. Freight 
billed to any one not known, cannot be found, is not called for within rea¬ 
sonable time, receiving agent should promptly notify forwarding agent of 
the facts in the case, and request him at once to ascertain and advise what 
disposition to be made of the property. If no satisfactory directions are 
obtained, receiving agent should send copy of way-bill, with report of all 
facts and correspondence, to general freight agent. 

Agents at points of destination of freight which has been carried 
through on cards will see that such cards on both sides of the car are re¬ 
moved before they allow the cars to leave their station. 

Loading articles on top of box or stock cars. Agents should in no in¬ 
stance allow freight to be so loaded at their station nor should they receive 
cars so loaded or from connecting lines without special authority so to do. 

Attention is called to the importance of securely fastening freight 
loaded on flat cars particularly in the case of machinery or engines on wheels, 
to prevent them from falling or running off cars while in transit. Agents 
should be particular to see that this class of freight is securely blocked and 
fastened before leaving their station. 

In the loading of long timbers or bridge iron and other long freight 
which require two flat cars for loading, particular attention should be 
given to have the load distributed equally between both trucks of each car 
by placing the supporters of the load near the center of each car. When 
thus loaded, so as to distribute the weight between both pairs of trucks, the 
added capacity of both cars can be allowed as a maximum, but when the 
load rests on the end trucks, the maximum must not exceed the capacity of 
one car. 

The inside doors of box, furniture and refrigerator cars are frequently 
damaged by allowing them to be used for other than their original purpose, 
when box or furniture cars are loaded with grain in bulk or refrigerator cars 
with perishable freight, it is expected and intended that the inside doors 
should be closed to protect the freight, but when loaded with ordinary 
merchandise, packages, and especially lumber, these inside doors must not 
be used, but always set back out of the way, using the outside doors to close 
the cars. When it is necessary to close the inside door to protect the prop¬ 
erty, care should be taken in loading not to place heavy packages against 
the doors or in such position that by the motion of the cars the packages 


11 


will work up against them, making it necessary to pry them off their hinges, 
or otherwise damage them before freight can be unloaded. 

Under no circumstances should Agents issue bill of lading or receipt 
for property which is not actually in possession of the company. They 
should be dated the date the property is received, show all “advanced 
charges” which are to appear on way-bill. Duplicates or copies should not 
be given unless plainly marked “duplicate” or “copy.” 

If at junction point state on way-bill name of connecting line freight 
is received from, also station, and way-bill number at originating point. 
Number bills consecutively, and back them carefully with ink. Any nota¬ 
tions on way-bills as to stopping short of destination, or other information 
important to the conductor, must be plainly written on the outside as well 
as inside of the way-bill. 

Freight shipped consigned to the care of a second party the agent should 
deliver only to the party in whose care the same is shipped, or if consigned 
to the order of a certain party with instructions to notify a second party, 
only on order of the party to whom consigned, in which case the original 
bill of lading must be surrendered to the agent, and should be tiled for ref¬ 
erence. 

All bad order packages should be carefully weighed, and the weight en¬ 
tered on the receipt and way-bill; the term “B. O.” or “bad order” is not 
sufficient; the exact condition should be ascertained and described. If 
consignee accepts freight which has been pilfered or damaged, examine 
his invoice if possible, and take memorandum of articles remaining and 
supposed to be short w T ith utmost exactness, making detailed report of 
same to proper officer. 

In contracting freight through to a point on another line, by order of 
eneral freight agent, the through rate and line proportions, if special, 
with authority, should appear on the way-bill. A violation of this rule will 
often occasion the connecting line billing their proportion of haul at tariff, 
which on arrival at destination aggregates an excess of the contract rate, 
invariably provoking unpleasantness, and occasionally a needless replevin 
of the goods. No agent should receipt for goods to a point beyond the ter¬ 
minus of his line without special authority. After the property has been 
delivered to the company to be forwarded, it becomes the property of the 
consignee, and in no instance should agent change the consignee and des¬ 
tination, unless by order of general freight agent, or compelled to do so by 
process of law. 

Always examine the condition of the seals and fastenings of cars imme¬ 
diately upon their receipt, preserving a record of such. The same care 
should be taken in forwarding cars, as a matter of self protection. Should 
you be at a way station and a conductor of freight train request you to seal 
a car which had been discovered unsealed, do so, at the same time make a 
complete record of the transaction, as you maybe called upon to explain the 


12 


presence of your seal, should a discrepancy occur in the actual and supposed 
contents of the car at destination. 

While car load freight is taken at owner’s risk as to deficiency in weight 
or measure, (except such as may arise from collision, or running off track) 
it would be an inexcusable error to receipt for and way-bill a car load of 
freight, such as grain, without first carefully examining the same to see that 
no mixed grain or contraband freight has been smuggled into the car; also 
if bill of lading reads say, “ forty thousand of wheat,” see that the wheat is 
up to the proper line in the car, and if same falls far below, such notation 
should appear on bill of lading, and also on way-bill. 

Hay should not be transported on flat cars upon any condition; when 
shipped in box cars it should be entirely at owner’s risk, and no car so 
loaded should go forward until inspected, and the possibility of a spark 
reaching the hay entirely removed. 

Agents have right to refuse for transportation, perishable articles, un¬ 
less freight on same is prepaid, and in no case advance back charges; and 
when such articles are not accepted by consignee, they should be disposed 
of at best possible advantage, for, and on account of owner, and an imme¬ 
diate detailed report of the transaction should be sent to the general 
freight agent. 

Live stock should be received subject to rules, conditions and terms of 
classification, and live stock contract in use; should be loaded and unloaded 
by owners at their expense and risk, and carried, accompanied by proper 
party, at owner’s risk of all injury to their animals, of whatever kind, except 
gross negligence of the company. 

Agents should know that stock cars are in proper condition to safely 
transport stock, particularly the floor, side doors, and cross bars; count the 
stock into the car, seal and cleat the doors, and note on way-bill the num¬ 
ber of head in each car, adding “more or less.” 

Make way-bills plain and explicit; use no abbreviations ; fill all the 
blanks in the way bill; be sure to give number and initial of car, name of 
consignor and consignee in full. Adhere strictly to billing directions; do 
not imagine that the shipper has erred in directions, and attempt to correct 
it; if you do, you will likely repent it. 

It is well to make bill of lading read, “ shipper’s weight,” or “ shipper’s 
count.” 

Too much care cannot be exercised in receipting for and checking of 
freight, both in and out of the warehouse and car. See that you receive no 
more nor less than bills call for. If, in checking from car to house, you are 
short, or over, make prompt report of same, using every endeavor to locate 
the discrepancy. See that consignor’s bill of lading and freight offered 
correspond exactly. Description, as “one bundle wheels,” “ one bundle 
iron,” “ bundle bed sides,” etc., is not sufficient; always state number of 
articles in each bundle. If freight received in rain or snow, chafed or dam¬ 
aged in any manner, the condition of which is in doubt, make such nota- 


13 


tion on bill of lading and way-bill. Never allow freight to be checked into or 
out of warehouse by draymen. These rules, strictly adhered to, would 
void thousands of dollars, annually, of claims against companies, aside 
from the annoyance and trouble attending. 

Examine the condition of every car before loading. Cars with leaky 
roofs should not be loaded with property liable to damage or injury by wa¬ 
ter. Cars which have been used for stock, coal, or anything winch has left 
them unclean, should be thoroughly cleansed before loading with merchan¬ 
dise or grain. Look carefully for coal oil or grease, which may have satu¬ 
rated the floor or sides of the car ; avoid loading in such cars property, such 
as flour, or anything in sacks, bales, or drygoods in boxes, which is liable 
to damage by coming in contact with parts of the car which have been so 
saturated. See that the doors at sides and ends are in condition for fast¬ 
ening. 

Goods should not be mixed in loading. Each lot must be kept separate. 
If you load goods in a car for more than one station, the goods to be un¬ 
loaded first should be put in the car last. Keep the goods for each sfation 
together and each lot of goods by itself. See that all goods in your charge 
are carefully handled and loaded in such manner that no damage may occur 
in transit by leakage of liquids, chafing of bales, etc. Casks containing 
oils (other than coal), turpentine, tar, molasses or liquors should be loaded 
on the bilge, and carefully blocked, bung wp. Place them as far as possible 
from other freight likely to sustain damage by any leakage that may occur 
in transit. 

Agents should use great care in the handling and loading of coal oil, 
and under no circumstances should it be loaded with other freight that can 
be damaged by it. So far as practicable it should be loaded in stock cars. 

Kerosene, coal oil, naphtha, benzole, or any other like substance of a 
combustible nature should neither be loaded nor unloaded through freight 
houses except in day time. Lights should not, under any circumstances, 
be allowed near the packages and such freight should be taken away oy 
consignees immediately upon its arrival. 

Agents should in no instance load freight for way stations into cars 
leaded with through freight, nor load nor allow to be loaded, a package of 
any kind of merchandise into cars loaded with grain'in bulk, or any cars 
consigned to the elevator. Particular attention should be paid to this. 

Hides, pelts, etc., should only be received for shipment under the fol¬ 
lowing rules: Every bundle of dry hides, sheep pelts, should be plainly 
marked with black paint, giving consignee and destination. Each and every 
green hide should be marked, either with a leather tag giving full consign¬ 
ment or tin tag stamped with deliverer’s private mark or number. 

Agents should refuse to receive or receipt for hides, pelts, etc., not 
marked in accordance with these instructions. 

When way-billing perishable property, agents should be particular to 
note on the face of the way-bill, also on the back, the words “Perishable 


14 


Property,” so that the attention of both conductor and receiving agent 
will be promptly called to the character of that particular property. This 
notation will not be necessary when the company provides a special form of 
way bills to be used way-billing perishable freight. 

Before loading live stock, examine the cars and see that the cross bars 
and doors are in proper order. Count the stock as it is being loaded so as 
to know the number of animals loaded into each car. While rules require 
the owner to load and unload his stock, agents should render all the assist¬ 
ance they can, consistent with their other duties. See that the cross bars are 
in their proper places and the doors securely fastened before the cars leave 
the station. Two or more kinds of stock should not be loaded in same car 
without special authority from the general freight agent. 

Property which the agent does, not consider worth charges for freight 
at a forced sale should not be received for transportation unless freight on 
same is prepaid. 

Shipment of H. H. goods, etc., should not be received for shipment be¬ 
yond the line on which it originates unless all charges are prepaid to des¬ 
tination. 

Agents should in no case deliver any goods to consignee until receipt 
for same has been taken and should not deliver a part of a consignment of 
goods without first collecting charges on the whole. 


HOW TO PREPARE CLAIMS FOR EXAMINATION AT THE GENERAL 
FREIGHT OR CLAIM OFFICE. 

No over charges, drawbacks, or damages to freight should be paid by 
agents in absence of special authority, but a claim for the same with full 
particulars should be sent to the general freight agent for his approval 
and adjustment. 


FOR OVERCHARGES IN RATE. 

Agents should require claimants to furnish paid freight bills, bills of 
claims, original bills of lading, and attach thereto copies of way-bills to 
their stations. When special contracts are claimed, and are not stated in 
bills of lading, claimants are required to obtain certified copy of such con¬ 
tract from the agent with whom the contract was made, and attach this to 
claim. 

Claims for overcharge in local rates should be submitted with a refer¬ 
ence to that part of a local tariff which refers to claims. 





15 


FOE OVEECHAEGES IN WEIGHT, COUNT, OE MEASUEEMENT. 

Agents should submit original bills of lading, paid freight bills, and 
bills of claims, with copies of way-bills for such goods to their stations, ac¬ 
companied by the original invoices of the articles claimed overcharged, or 
certified copies of the same. When invoice weights cannot be obtained, or 
when they have no bearing on the claim, it is always desirable that the agent 
certify to the correct weight, count, or measurement, as ascertained by actual 
test. It is desirable that when an apparent overcharge in weight occurs, 
agents having scales should test the weight before delivery of the article, 
and preserve a record of the same to be submitted with the claim. 


FOE LOSS OE DAMAGE. 

In cases of partial loss or of damage apparent upon unloading, agents 
should make a thorough examination of the condition of packages, extent 
of loss or damage, and the probable causes of the same, taking care to count , 
weigh or measure the articles, carefully preserving a record thereof, with a 
view to facilitate an accurate and just settlement of claims likely to arise 
therefrom. 

In cases of concealed loss or damage to goods delivered in an apparent 
good order, claimants should be required to make their claims immediately, 
and support them, if entertained at all, by the affidavits of both forwarder 
and receiver as to quality, condition of the contents previous and subse¬ 
quent to shipment, by an appraisement made by not less than two disinter¬ 
ested parties, or by both, if considered desirable. 

The company reserves the right to take for its own use articles in which 
damages are claimed upon payment of the invoice price, with freight, if 
freight has been paid by claimants, added. 

When total damage is claimed agents should procure prompt estimates 
of the value of the property, which should be submitted with other neces¬ 
sary papers. 

Particular care and promptness should be shown in the case of damage 
to perishable articles, and when any damage can be lessened by attention 
and care, it should be promptly given. 

Agents should in all cases make prompt and personal examination, sub¬ 
mitting full report of the same accompanied by bill of claim, original bill of 
lading, original or certified copy of invoice, and copy of way bill; also a 
statement of condition of car, of seal, nature and apparent cause of damage, 
or loss, when car was received, when seals cut, when unloaded, if freight 
taken out of the car without intermission, how receipted for, what chance 
there was for loss or damage at unloading point, and all other items of in¬ 
formation that may promote speedy and proper adjustment. 

If parties present bills of lading for articles billed but never received, 
gents should forward bill of lading thereof with original or certified copy 
of invoice. 



16 


LEAKAGE. 

Paid freight bills, original bills of lading, gauger’s certificates, both pre¬ 
vious and subsequent to shipment, original or certified copies of invoices, 
copy of the way-bill for freight to the station, reports showing by whom and 
how receipted, must always be submitted with claims of this character. 

As this class of claims is only entertained when there is evidence of 
neglect or bad handling by the carriers, agents should give special attention 
to such packages when received at their station and delivered to consignee, 
with a view to ascertain the nature and the probable cause of damage to 
packages or possible original defects, or bad cooperage in them. 


GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. 

As almost all claims must necessarily require various explanations it is 
desirable that the agents, to whom the claims are presented, submit them to 
the general freight office or claim office as the case may be, as complete as 
possible with full notations from other agents, thereby avoiding unnecessary 
delay in the adjustment of claims. 

As soon as freight is unloaded it should be taken off the platforms. No 
freight should be piled closer than 7 feet of nearest rail on the sidings. 
Freight should not be received for storage or await shipping or reshipping 
directions, but should in every case be ready for shipment and be shipped 
with the least possible delay. In absence of special instructions freight 
should have precedence of movement in the following order:—viz.: Live 
stock, perishable freight, in order of its perishableness, fast freight, general 
merchandise, grain, cotton, coal, pig iron. Less important freight always 
gives way to the more important. 


BONDED FREIGHT. 

A line having been “Bonded” as a common carrier of imported mer¬ 
chandise in bond, is governed by the following rules in handling freight. 

Less than Cae Loads. —All packages containing bonded merchandise 
must be strapped, corded, and sealed with customs seals; also all casks con¬ 
taining liquors of any kind must have bungs and other openings properly 
sealed. Great care must be taken to observe that all are in proper condition 
and not disturbed or broken in transit. Freight not properly strapped, 
corded and sealed will not be received. 

Cae Loads. —Cars containing bonded freight will not be received except 
under customs seals, and must go through to destination without transfer. 
Customs seals must in no case be broken or disturbed except under super¬ 
vision of a duly authorized customs officer, except when in case of a wreck 
where cars must be ditched and it becomes imperatively necessary, when 




17 


tile conductor of train may break seals and transfer property, making affi¬ 
davit of the facts as also to the checking and condition of the property. 
Should the cars become disabled or for other reasons it becomes necessary 
to make transfer, station agents should report it at once to the general office, 
when the customs officer will be sent to supervise the breaking of the seals 
and the checking of property and reseal the car. 

Billing.— Transfer sheets or shipping bills must in all cases be accom¬ 
panied by a customs manifest, and which must agree in every particular as 
to consignor, consignee, marks, etc., with the billing. This customs mani¬ 
fest must accompany the way-bill, and both must in all cases go with the 
car. Way-bills must also have notations showing what papers are attached, 
as also noted inside and outside “Bonded Freight.” Upon arrival of bond¬ 
ed freight at destination, the agent of the company will report the arrival of 
such freight to the customs officer, with the customs manifest, and will make 
delivery of the freight to him and take his receipt in regular form, which 
will be kept on file in his “agent’s office” as a part of the records. Delivery 
will in no case be made to consignee until you have the customs officer’s 
receipt and order for delivery. 


LEGAL ADVICE. 

The following information is furnished agents for their use in cases 
where attempt is made to take goods out of the company’s possession by 
legal process: 

First.—The company has lien for freight charges on all goods carried by 
it, and cannot be compelled by law to relinquish its possession until its 
reasonable freight and all back charges are paid. The agent should demand 
payment of freight, and refuse to give the goods up until all payment of 
freight and back charges has been made; if, after he does this, the officer in 
violation of the law, takes the goods by force, and will not pay freight, the 
claim and lien on goods can be made good in the courts. 

Second.—Agents cannot be required to open their warehouses at mid¬ 
night, or any other unusual hour, but they should not in any manner place 
obstacles in the way of an officer executing process; same facilities should 
be given an officer in the execution of process as are afforded the general 
community for transaction of ordinary business. The officer has a right, 
under his process, to seize goods, subject to payment of company charges 
first, the agent notifying all parties of the fact at once. 

Third.—Any consignor, being the vendor of the goods, has the right to 
reclaim and stop them in transit and before their delivery to consignee, and 
in cases where goods are fraudulently obtained, or when consignee, after 
the sale, becomes known to be insolvent, a demand for the goods of the 
agent is sufficient. If, after such demand, the company voluntarily delivers 
the goods to any one else, or refuses to deliver them to consignor, upon 



18 


tender of all charges for transportation, a “right of action” will lie against 
the company. The fact that goods have been forwarded by several different 
carriers does not alter the rule or vary the responsibility of the company. 

When goods are carried over several different lines, the right of stop¬ 
page in transit continues as long as the voyage lasts, or until they reach the 
hands of the party who is to receive the goods for consignee as his agent, 
or in that capacity has the right to give them a new destination, or to keep 
them until consignee can send for or dispose of them. In such case the law 
considers the right of stoppage at an end. 

Fourth.—Whenever goods are attached, replevined or seized on execu¬ 
tion, the company’cannot refuse to deliver, after payment of charges, as it is 
always ample^defense to show goods have been taken from it by legal process. 

The law requires in such cases that the company, without delay shall 
notify, by mail or in person, the consignor and consignee as well as any 
other persons claiming an interest on the goods that have been taken, and 
demanding of them that they enforce and protect their individual rights in 
the action wherein the goods were seized. 

In all cases where goods are replevined by consignee or other persons 
without first paying all freight and back charges, the action cannot be main¬ 
tained and j the agent'should within 24 hours give the officer sufficient re - 
delivery bond and retake possession of the goods immediately, report the 
same to the general freight agent by wire and letter, giving every particular 
of the case. 

A form for the above note is appended, and in all cases agents should 
use this form in giving prompt notice to parties as above stated. 


19 


FORM OF NOTICE. 


Station ,. 188.... 


To 


Sir: 

You are liereby notified that the following goods ,to wit: 

.... consigned by . . . .of . 

to . of .. . and received by this company 

from . on the . day of. . ..188...have 

hem seized by . ..at the suit of. . .. against 

said . in a certain action pending before . . 

in and for the . of. . in ... county 

of. .., and we demand that you take such steps to 

enforce and protect your rights in said action as to you 
may seem proper. 


Agent. 


R. M. 

























20 


MISCELLANEOUS. 

The attention of agents is called to Section 3324 of the Revised Statutes 
of the United States, which is as follows: 

“Every person who empties or draws off, or causes to be emptied or 
drawn off, any distilled spirits from a cask or package bearing any mark, 
brand, or stamp required by law, shall, at the time of emptying such cask 
or package, efface and obliterate said mark, stamp, or brand. Every such 
cask or package from which said mark, brand, and stamp, is not effaced and 
obliterated as herein required, shall be forfeited to the United States, and 
may be seized by any officer of internal revenue wherever found; and every 
railroad company or other transportation company or person who receives 
or transports, or has in possession with intent to transport, or with intent 
to cause or procure to be transported any such empty cask or package, or 
any part thereof, having thereon any brand, mark, or stamp, required by 
law to be placed on any^cask or package containing distilled spirits, shall 
forfeit three hundred dodlars for each such cask or package, or any part 
thereof, so received or transported or had in possession with the intent 
aforesaid; and any boat, railroad car, cart, dray, wagon, or other vehicle, and 
all horses or other animals used in carrying or transporting the same, shall 
be forfeited to the United States. Every person who fails to efface and 
obliterate said mark, stamp, or brand, at the time of emptying such cask or 
package, or who receives any such cask or package, or any part thereof, with 
the intent aforesaid, or who transports the same, knowingly aids or assists 
therein, or who removes any stamp provided by law from any cask or pack¬ 
age containing or which had contained distilled spirits, without defacing 
and destroying the same at the time of such removal, or who aids or assists 
therein, or who has in his possession any such stamp so removed as afore¬ 
said, or has in his possession any cancelled stamp, or any stamp which has 
been used, or which purports to have been used, upon any cask or package 
of distilled spirits, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be fined 
not less than $500 nor more than $10,000, and imprisoned not less than one 
year nor more than five years.” 

Section 12 of the Act of March 1st, 1879, applies the provisions and pen¬ 
alties of Section 3324 to casks and packages which have contained imported 
spirits. 

Agents should not receive for transportation or forward empty casks, 
or empty packages of any kind, without their having the United States 
revenue stamps or brands entirely removed or obliterated. If such empty 
casks or empty packages are received for transportation, the agent should 
carefully examine the same, and if the revenue stamps or brands have not 
been removed or obliterated, it is the duty of the agent to remove or oblit¬ 
erate such stamps or brands before the empty casks or packages are for¬ 
warded. Agents receiving such empty casks or packages will also examine 
the same before delivery to consignees, to see that the above has been com¬ 
plied with, and should report all deviations to the freight department. 

Also in shipping full packages, agents should see that the proper stamps 
required by the revenue laws of the United States are affixed in a legal man¬ 
ner. Each cask or package must be stamped with the particular stamp re¬ 
quired by law according to the size of the package. For instance, with ref¬ 
erence to malt liquors, a quarter-cask must have one “quarter-cask” stamp 
on it and not two “eighth-cask” stamps. The regular stamp must be a full 


21 


quarter stamp, as a violation of this regulation makes the property itself 
liable to seizure, and also all cars transporting it. In all these things it is 
necessary to comply fully with the letter of the law. Agents at point of de¬ 
livery should promptly report to the freight department any neglect of 
these orders, with full particulars, as they are not optional but arbitrary. 

Attention is also particularly called to the following:— 

Section 3343, B. S. 

“Whenever any brewer, cartman, agent for transportation, or other 
person sells, removes, receives, or purchases, or in any way aids in the sale, 
removal, receipt, or purchase, of any fermented liquor contained in any 
hogshead, barrel, keg, or other vessel from any brewery or brewery ware¬ 
house, upon which the stamp or permit, in case of removal, required by 
law, has not been affixed, or on which a false or fraudulent stamp, or permit, 
in case of removal, is affixed, with knowledge that it is such, or on which a 
stamp, or permit, in case of removal, once canceled is used a second time, 
he shall be fined one hundred dollars and imprisoned for not more than 
one year.” 


To obey orders of superior officers, strictly and without question, is the 
first duty of all employes. 

Avoid the use of telegraph when a letter will answer the purpose. The 
use of the wire should be confined to the necessities — when time is a ne¬ 
cessary factor in a correspondence. 

In all transactions see that your position is fully understood. Often the 
best motives are erroneously construed and an improper judgment ignor¬ 
antly executed. 

In writing an officer of the company, state facts in a clear, distinct, in¬ 
telligent manner; avoid repeating, commenting, or supposing. While your 
time to enlarge upon a subject, and present matters in their minutest detail, 
may be unlimited, his to read, is as a rule, inadequate. 

The particulars of an accident should never be made the subject of con¬ 
versation with the public, nor with operators over the wire; a violation of 
this rule usually has a tendency to effect the interests of the company, espe¬ 
cially if accident resulted in personal injury. 

Keep yourself, office and surroundings in such a condition that an un¬ 
expected visit from an official will not provoke an embarrassment upon your 
part, nor criticism upon his. 

The tidy waiting-room, courteous treatment to the traveler, prompt at¬ 
tention to the wishes of the public, the many little courtesies, easily ex¬ 
pended and always appreciated, not only reflect credit upon yourself, but 
speak volumes in the management of the road. 


Several railway corporations have instructed their employes, under 
penalty of dismissal, to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors, and 




22 


the frequenting of drinking places, when off, as well as on, duty. That this 
is a move in the proper direction no one will question. It is to be regretted 
that such action became necessary, and while it will have a tendency to 
weed out, to a certain extent, a class found in all vocations of life, the good, 
true and noble upon whom the moral standard of the system depends have 
no reason to become discouraged ; quite the contrary. One cannot always 
be a hero, but one can always be a man. 


The following rules will enable agents to ascertain, as near as possible, 
the quantity of bulk grain in a car. First, level the top of the grain as 
evenly as possible, and use the following rules-: 

To Measube Cobn. —Multiply the length, width and height in inches 
together, and divide the product by 38.4; the result of which will give the 
weight of corn in the car, in pounds. 

To Measube Oats.— Multiply length, width, and height of grain in 
inches together, and divide the product by 67.2; the result will be the 
number of pounds in weight. 

To Measube Wheat.— The inches in length, width and height should 
be multiplied as before, the product being divided by 36; the result of 
which will be, with the addition of four pounds to every thousand pounds? 
the weight contained in the car. 

To bind the Quantity of Sjieeled Coen in a Ceib.— Measure the 
length, breadth, and height of crib, inside the rail; multiply them together 
and divide by two; the result is the number of bushels of shelled corn in 
the crib. 


OFFICIAL BONDS. 

It is a fact now generally known, that the railway companies are taking 
steps to insure the honesty of their employes, which not only dispenses 
with much trouble to the corporations, but its influence with the employe 
is good, and has a tendency to improve the service, and raise the moral 
standard of the official. Hitherto all officials, whose duties have been in 
whole or part of a"financial nature, have usually given a bond signed by one 
or more responsible parties. In case the bonds were forfeited, the compa¬ 
nies have often found it wiser to compromise than to take action aginst the 
bondsmen. The giving of a bond has many other objectionable features, 
not only to the company, but to the individual. In order to obviate these 
difficulties, a large number of the companies now have recourse to the dif¬ 
ferent guarantee companies which are located in this country and Canada. 
In all positions of trust the holder gives a personal security. The railway 
company names the amount of the bond, which the guarantee company ac¬ 
cepts on a certain condition. The one insuring pays three-fourths of one per 
<-ent. per annum on the amount stipulated in the bond. Thus, a party giving 




23 


security to the amount of one thousand dollars is assessed seven dollars and 
fifty cents per year. In some cases this premium is paid by the company, 
though generally by the party insuring. This system is becoming popular 
with the railway company and employe alike. The applicant for guarantee 
whose character is above reproach can afford to have the same investigated- 
The enemies of the new system are those in whose characters are wanting the 
elements of men. 


THE OPERATOR. 

It is absolutely important that he be impressed with the sense of re¬ 
sponsibility resting upon him. His apprenticeship and training should be 
such as to assure this as far as possible. 

The most skilled train dispatcher, whose thoughts and actions must 
necessarily be quick, cannot successfully direct the movements of the train, 
without the undivided attention of the vigilant operator. Very few seem 
to realize the weight of responsibility resting upon a train dispatcher. 
Not only must he keep a watch over one train which is speeding along at 
the rate of thirty-five or forty miles an hour, bearing its precious freight of 
human lives, but he must follow the complicated movements of many other 
trains, with their lives and property, which a blunder or inaccuracy of his 
would hurl to death and ruin. Eealizing the truth of this, how vastly im¬ 
portant that operators, whose work is more exacting than any other calling, 
should be men of unclouded character, of principles well defined, self-sac¬ 
rificing, and absolutely temperate. The failure of a superior officer to rec¬ 
ognize such sterling qualities when found in the rank and file of his sub¬ 
ordinates, often generates an indifference. One encouraging word from a 
superintendent ignites anew the spirit of pride often lying dormant in the 
breast of the liberty loving employe—that feeling so much desired, yet sel¬ 
dom experienced. 


The greatest and most successful railway managers of to-day, have, 
with rare exceptions, risen from the ranks. Let aspiring young men who 
are still at the foot of the ladder take courage. In the vast railway develop¬ 
ment sure to take place the next ten years, the most flattering possibilities 
are presented. 




24 


TABLE.—Showing rate in cents per 100 tbs., with equivalent rate in cents 
per bushel. 


1 Freight. 

I per 100. 

Wheat. 

60 lbs. 

Corn. 

56 lbs. 

Oats. 

32 lbs. 

Barley. 

48 lbs. 

Freight, 
per 100. 

Wheat. 

601bs. 

Corn. 

56 lbs. 

Oats. 

32 lbs. 

Barley. 

48 lbs. 

1 Ereight. 
per 100. 

Wheat. 

60 lbs. 

Corn. 

56 lbs. 

CD % 

Og* 

Barley. 

48 lbs. 

1 

.6 

.6 

.3 

.5 

35 

21.0 

19.6 

11.2 

16.8 

69 

41.4 

38.6 

22.1 

33.1 

2 

1.2 

1.1 

.6 

1.0 

36 

21.6 

20.2 

11.5 

17.3 

70 

42.0 

39.2 

22.4 

33.6 

3 

1.8 

1.7 

1.0 

1.4 

37 

22.2 

20.7 

11.8 

17.8 

71 

42.6 

39.8 

22.7 

34.1 

4 

2.4 

2.2 

1.3 ■ 

1.9 

38 

22.8 

21.3 

12.2 

18.2 

72 

43.2 

40.3 

23.0 

34.6 

5 

3.0 

2.8 

1.6 

2.4 

39 

23.4 

21.8 

12.5 

18.7 

73 

43.8 

40.9 

23.4 

35.0 

6 

3.6 

3.4 

1.9 

2.9 

40 

24.0 

22.4 

12.8 

19.2 

74 

44.4 

41.4 

23.7 

35.5 

7 

4.2 

3.9 

2.2 

3.4 

41 

24.6 

23.0 

13.1 

19.7 

75 

45.0 

42.0 

24.0 

36.0 

8 

4.8 

4.5 

2.6 

3.8 

42 

25.2 

23.5 

13.4 

20.2 

76 

45.6 

42.6 

24.3 

36.5 

9 

5.4 

5.0 

2.9 

4.3 

43 

25.8 

24.1 

13.8 

20.6 

77 

46.2 

43.1 

24.6 

37.0 

10 

6.0 

5.6 

3.2 

4.8 

44 

26.4 

24.6 

14.1 

21.1 

78 

46.8 

43.7 

25.0 

37.4 

11 

6 6 

6.2 

3.5 

5.3 

45 

27.0 

25.2 

14.4 

21.6 

79 

47.4 

44.2 

25.3 

38.0 

12 

7.2 

6.7 

3.8 

5.8 

46 

27.6 

25.8 

14.7 

22.1 

80 

48.0 

44.8 

25.6 

38.4 

13 

7.8 

7.3 

4.2 

6.2 

47 

28.2 

26.3 

15.0 

22.6 

81 

48.6 

45 4 

25.9 

38.9 

14 

8.4 

7.8 

4.5 

6.7 

48 

28.8 

26.9 

15.4 

23.0 

82 

49.2 

45.9 

26.2 

39.4 

15 

9.0 

8.4 

4.8 

7.2 

49 

29.4 

27.4 

15.7 

23.5 

83 

49.8 

46.5 

26.6 

39.8 

16 

9.6 

9.0 

5.1 

7.7 

50 

30.0 

28.0 

16.0 

24.0 

84 

50.4 

47.0 

26.9 

40.3 

17 

10.2 

9.5 

5.4 

8.2 

51 

30.6 

28.6 

16.3 

24.5 

85 

51.0 

47.6 

27.2 

40.8 

18 

10.8 

10.1 

5.8 

8.6 

52 

31.2 

29.1 

16.6 

25.0 

86 

51.6 

48.2 

27.5 

41.3 

19 

11.4 

10.6 

6.1 

9.1 

53 

31.8 

29.7 

17.0 

25.4 

87 

52.2 

48.7 

27.8 

41.8 

20 

12.0 

11.2 

6.4 

9.6 

54 

32.4 

30.2 

17.3 

25.9 

88 

52.8 

49.3 

28.2 

42.2 

21 

12.6 

11.8 

6.7 

10.1 

55 

33.0 

30.8 

17.6 

26.4 

89 

53.4 

49.8 

28.5 

42.7 

22 

13.2 

12.3 

7.0 

10.6 

56 

33.6 

31.4 

17.9 

26.9 

90 

54.0 

50.4 

28.8 

43.2 

23 

13.8 

12.9 

7.4 

110 

57 

34.2 

31.9 

18.2 

27.4 

91 

54.6 

51.0 

29.1 

43 7 

24 

14.4 

13.4 

7.7 

11.5 

58 

34.8 

32.5 

18.6 

27.9 

92 

55.2 

51.5 

29.4 

44.2 

25 

15.0 

14.0 

8.0 

12.0 

59 

35.4 

33.0 

18.9 

28.3 

93 

55.8 

52.1 

29.8 

44.6 

26 

15.6 

14.6 

8.3 

12.5 

60 

36.0 

33.6 

19.2 

28.8 

94 

56.4 

52.6 

30.1 

45.1 

27 

16.2 

15.1 

8.6 

13.0 

61 

36.6 

34.2 

19.5 

29.3 

95 

57.0 

53.2 

30.4 

45.6 

28 

16.8 

15.7 

90 

13.4 

62 

37.2 

34.7 

19.8 

29.8 

96 

57.6 

53.8 

30.7 

46.1 

29 

17.4 

16.2 

9.2 

13.9 

63 

37.8 

35.3 

20.2 

30.2 

97 

58.2 

54.3 

31.0 

46.6 

30 

18.0 

16.8 

9.6 

14.4 

64 

38.4 

35.8 

20.5 

30.7 

98 

58.8 

54.9 

31.4 

47.0 

31 

18.6 

17.4 

9.9 

14.9 

65 

39.0 

36.4 

20.8 

31.2 

99 

59.4 

55.4 

31.7 

47.5 

32 

19.2 

17.9 

10.2 

15.4 

66 

39.6 

37.0 

21.1 

31.7 

100 

60.0 

56.0 

32.0 

48.0 

33 

19 8 

18.5 

10.6 

15.8 

67 

40.2 

37.5 

21.4 

32.2 

I — 

_ 

— 

_ _ 

_ # _ 

34 

20.4 

19.0 

10.9 

16 3 

1 68 

40.8 

1 38.1 

21.8 

32.7 

|1 - 



— - 










































25 


TABLE. — Showing rate in cents per bushel, with equivalent rates in 
cents per 100 lbs. 


Grain. 

Cents per bush. 

Wheat. 

Per 100 lbs. 

60 lbs.to bushel. 

Corn. 

Per 100 lbs. 

56lbs.to bushel. 

Barley. 

Per 100 lbs. 

48 lbs.to bushel. 

Oats. 

Per 100 lbs. 

34 lbs.to bushel. 

Oats. 

Per 100 lbs. 

32 lbs.to bushel. 


Cts. lOOtbs. 

Cts. lOOths. 

Cts. lOOths. 

Cts. lOOths. 

Cts. lOOths. 

1 

1 66 

1 78 

2 08 

2 94 

3 12 

1/ 

2 50 

2 67 

3 12 

4 41 

4 68 

2 

3 34 

3 57 

4 17 

5 88 

6 24 

2/ 

4 17 

4 47 

5 21 

7 35 

7 81 

3 

5 00 

5 36 

6 25 

8 82 

9 38 

3 / 

5 83 

6 25 

7 29 

10 29 

10 94 

4 

6 67 

7 14 

8 33 

11 76 

12 50 

4/ 

7 50 

8 03 

9 37 

13 23 

14 06 

5 

8 34 

8 93 

10 41 

14 70 

15 62 

5*4 

9 17 

9 82 

11 46 

16 18 

17 18 

6 

10 00 

10 71 

12 50 


18 75 

6*4 

10 83 

11 60 

13 54 

19 11 

20 31 

7 

11 67 

12 50 

14 58 

20 59 

21 87 

7*4 

12 50 

13 39 

15 62 

22 06 

23 44 

8 

13 34 

14 28 

16 67 

23 53 

25 00 

8*4 

14 17 

15 18 

17 71 

25 00 

26 56 

9 

15 00 

16 06 

18 75 

26 47 

28 12 

9*4 

15 83 

16 96 

19 79 

27 94 

29 69 

10 

16 67 

17 86 

20 83 

29 41 

31 25 

io*4 

17 50 

18 75 

21 87 

30 88 

32 81 

n 

18 34 

19 64 

22 91 

32 35 

34 37 

11*4 

19 17 

20 53 

23 96 

33 82 

35 94 

1 2 

20 00 

21 42 

25 00 

35 29 

37 50 

18*4 

20 83 

22 32 

26 04 

36 76 

39 06 

13 

21 67 

23 21 

27 08 

38 23 

40 62 

13*4 

22 50 

24 10 

28 12 

39 71 

42 19 

14 

23 34 

25 00 

29 16 

41 18 

43 75 

14*4 

24 17 

25 89 

30 20 

42 64 

45 31 

15 

25 00 

26 78 

31 25 

44 11 

46 87 

15/2 

25 83 

27 67 

32 29 

45 59 

48 43 

16 

26 67 

28 57 

33 33 

47 06 

50 00 

16/2 

27 50 

29 46 

34 37 

48 53 

51 56 

17 

28 34 

30 35 

35 41 

50 00 

53 12 

17/2 

29 17 

31 25 

36 46 

51 47 

54 68 

18 

30 00 

32 14 

37 50 

52 94 

56 25 

18*4 

30 83 

33 03 

38 54 

54 41 

57 81 

19 

31 67 

33 93 

39 58 

55 88 

59 37 

19/2 

32 50 

34 82 

40 62 

57 35 

60 93 

20 

33 34 

35 71 

41 67 

58 82 

62 50 

20 *4 

34 17 

36 60 

42 71 

60 29 

64 06 

21 

35 00 

37 50 

43 75 

61 76 

65 62 

21*4 

35 83 

38 39 

44 79 

63 23 

67 19 

22 

36 67 

39 28 

45 83 

64 70 

68 75 

22*4 

37 50 

40 18 

46 87 

66 18 

70 31 

23 

38 34 

41 07 

47 91 

67 64 

71 87 

23*4 

39 17 

41 96 

48 96 

69 11 

73 43 

24 

40 00 

42 86 

50 00 

70 59 

75 00 

24*4 

40 83 

43 75 

51 04 

72 06 

76 56 

25 

41 67 

44 64 

52 08 

73 53 

78 12 

25 X 

42 50 

45 53 

53 12 

75 00 

79 68 

26 

43 34 

46 42 

54 16 

76 47 

81 25 

26/ 

44 17 

47 32 

55 20 

77 94 

82 81 

27 

45 00 

48 21 

56 25 

79 41 

84 37 

27/ 

45 83 

49 10 

57 29 

80 88 

85 93 

28 

46 67 

50 00 

58 33 

82 35 

87 50 

28/ 

47 50 

50 89 

59 37 

83 82 

89 06 

29 

48 34 

51 78 

60 41 

85 29 

90 62 

29/ 

49 17 

52 67 

61 46 

86 76 

92 18 

30 

50 00 

53 57 

62 50 

88 23 

93 75 






























26 


TABLE OF ESTIMATED WEIGHTS. 

TO BE USED ONLY WHEN THE ACTUAL WEIGHT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. 

Pounds. 

Acid per carboy. 230 

Alcohol, per barrel. 100 

Ale, Beer, or Porter, per barrel. 330 

Ale, Beer, or Porter, per half-barrel. 170 

Ale, Beer, or Porter, per quarter-barrel.. 90 

Ale, Beer, or Porter, per one-sixth barrel. 70 

Apples, dried, per barrel. 200 

Apples, dried, in sugar barrels. 300 

Apples, green, per barrel.*. 150 

Apples, green, per bushel. 50 

Ashes, pot or pearl, per barrel. 450 

Bacon, per hogshead. 1000 

Bacon, per barrel. 330 

Barley, per bushel. 48 

Bark, per cord. 2000 

Brick, common, each. 5 

Brick, pressed, each. 7 

Brick, fire. 7 

Beans, dried, per bushel . 60 

Beef, salted, per barrel. 330 

Brandy, per barrel. 400 

Brooms, per dozen. 30 

Buckwheat, per bushel*.. 50 

Cakes, per barrel.. 100 

Carrots, per barrel.. 150 

Cement, per barrel. 300 

Charcoal, per bushel. 22 

Cider, per barrel. 400 

Clams, per barrel. 250 

Clams, per bag. 100 

Clothes Pins, per box.'. 30 

Clover Seed, per bushel. 64 

Coal Oil, per barrel. 400 

Coffee, essence, per box. 35 

Coke, per bushel. 40 

Corn, per bushel. 56 

Corn Meal, per barrel. 200 

Chocolate, per box. 30 

Crackers, per barrel. 100 









































27 


Pounds. 

Eggs, per barrel. 180 

Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per barrel. 90 

Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per half-barrel. 50 

Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per quarter-barrel. 30 

Empty Barrels, ale, beer, or porter, per one-sixtli of a barrel. 20 

Empty Barrels, flour, per barrel. 20 

Empty Barrels, oil, per barrel. 60 

Empty Barrels, truck, per barrel. 20 

Empty Barrels, whisky, per barrel. 60 

Empty Kegs, nail, per keg. 6 

Empty Kegs, powder, per keg. 4 

Fish, salt, per barrel. 300 

Fish, salt, per half-barrel. 150 

Fish, salt, per quarter-barrel.,. 75 

Fish, salt, per one-eighth of a barrel or kit. 35 

Flaxseed, per bushel. 56 

Flour, per barrel. 200 

Grain, Brewers’, per bushel. 50 

Grass Seeds, Timothy and Light Grass Seeds, per bushel. 45 

Highwines, per barrel. 400 

Ice, per bushel. 80 

Lard Oil, per barrel. 400 

Lime, land, per bushel. 80 

Lime, per barrel. 230 

Linseed Oil, per barrel... 400 

Lumber:— 

Pine, Hemlock, Spruce, or Poplar, green, per 1000 feet, B. M. 4000 

Pine, Hemlock, Spruce, or Poplar, partially dry, per 1000 feet, B. M 3000 

Pine, Hemlock, Spruce, or Poplar, dry, per 1000 feet, B. M. 2000 

Cherry, Ash, Yellow^ Pine, Maple, green, per 1000 feet, B. M. 4500 

Cherry, Ash, Yellow Pine, Maple, dry, per 1000 feet, B. M. 3500 

Oak, Walnut, Hickory, green, per 1000 feet, B. M. 6000 

Oak, Walnut, Hickory, dry, per 1000 feet, B. M. 5000 

Lath, plastering, per thousand. 500 

Lath, shingling, per thousand lineal feet.- 700 

Pickets, per thousand .. .. 2500 

Shingles, cedar, long, per thousand. . 1400 

Shingles, pine, per thousand. 1000 

Shingles, bunched, per thousand. 800 







































28 


Pounds. 

Malt, barley, per bushel ... 35 

Malt, dry or spent, Brewers’ Grain, per bushel . 50 

Malt, rye, per bushel . 40 

Meat, salted, per barrel . 330 

Molasses, per barrel . 570 

Nails, per keg . 100 

Oatmeal, per barrel . 220 

Oats, per bushel . 32 

Onions, per bushel . 56 

Oranges and lemons, per box . 75 

Oysters, per barrel . 250 

Oysters, per sack . 200 

Pork, per barrel ...:. 330 

Potatoes, per barrel . .s...... 180 

Potatoes, per bushel . 60 

Potatoes, sweet, per barrel . 160 

Eye, per bushel . 56 

Salt, per barrel . 300 

Salt, Ashton, per sack . 225 

Salt, coarse, per bushel . 70 

Salt, ground, per sack . 200 

Sand, per barrel . 450 

Shot, per bag . 25 

Stone, undressed, per cubic foot . 7 . 160 

Turnips, per barrel . 180 

Turnips, per bushel . 56 

Turpentine, per barrel . 350 

Yarnish, per barrel . 400 

Vinegar, per barrel . 400 

Wheat, per bushel . 60 

Whiskey and Highwines, per barrel. 400 

Wood, hickory, per cord . 4800 


































29 


LIME, COAL AND WOOD. 

Lime and Coal, per bushel. 

Coke, per bushel. 

Wood, soft, green, per cord. 

Wood, soft, dry, per cord. 

Wood, hard, green, per cord. 

Wood, hard, dry, per cord. 


Pounds. 

80 

40 

. 3500 

. 3000 

. 4500 

. 3500 


SAND, STONE, ETC. 


Sand, per cubic yard. 3000 

Gravel, per cubic yard... 3200 

Stone, undressed, per cubic yard. 4000 

Stone, undressed, per perch. 3800 

Marble, per cubic foot.. 165 

Slate, per cubic foot. 165 

Ice, per cubic foot. . 62J 


Apples, dried. 

Apples, green. 

Barley. 

Beans, white. 

Beans, Castor. 

Bran. 

Buckwheat. 

Charcoal. 

Coal. 

Coke. 

Corn, shelled. 

Corn, in ear. 

Corn Meal. 

Flaxseed.. 

Grass Seed, Blue. 

Grass Seed, Clover .... 
Grass Seed, Hungarian 

Grass Seed, Millet. 

Grass Seed, Orchard .. 
Grass Seed, Bed Top . 
Grass Seed, Timothy. 

Hemp Seed. 

Lime. 

Malt, Barley. 

Malt, Bye. 


24 lbs. per 

56 “ « 

48 

60 “ “ 

46 “ “ 

20 “ “ 

52 “ “ 


22 

80 

40 

56 

70 

48 

56 

14 

60 

45 

45 

14 

14 

45 

44 

80 

38 

35 


66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 


66 

66 

66 

66 


barrel. 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 


6 . 

66 


- . 

66 

66 

66 

66 


66 


66 

66 

66 









































30 


Oats. 


. 32 

lbs. 

per 

barrel. 

Onions. 


. 60 

“ 

4 4 

« 

Peaches, Dried. 


. 33 

4 4 

4 4 


Peas. 


. 60 

44 

“ 

44 

Plastering Hair. 


. 8 

“ 

« 

« 

Potatoes, Common. 


. 60 

4 4 

4 4 

4 4 

Potatoes, Sweet .. 


...... 55 

* 4 


4 4 

Pye. 


. 56 

a 


4 4 

Salt. 


. 56 

£%' 

44 

44 

Ship Stuff. 


.35 

“ 

4 4 


Turnips . 


. 56 


• 4 

<e 

Wheat. 


. 60 


“ 

« 

Alcohol. 


.380 


< t 

barrel. 

Ale, Beer and Porter. 


.330 

4 4 

“ 

44 

Ale, Beer and Porter. 


.175 

44 

4 4 

barrel. 

Ale, Beer and Porter. 


.100 

4 4 

44 

i-barrel. 

Apples, Green. 


.150 

44 

*t 

barrel. 

Beef. 


.330 

“ 

4 4 

,4 4 

Cider.!... 


.400 


44 

4 4 

Corn Meal. 


.220 


4 4 

4 4 

Eggs. 


.200 

44 

“ 


Pish. 


.300 

“ 

4 4 

44 

Pish. 


.160 

44 

44 

^-barrel. 

Pish. 


.80 

44 

44 

i-barrel. 

Fish . 

* 

. 40 

44 

44 

kit. 

Flour. 


.200 

44 

4 4 

barrel. 

Highwines. 


.380 

44 

44 

44 

Liquors, not otherwise specified. .. 


.400 

44 

4 4 * 

44 

Molasses. 


.575 

44 

4 4 

44 

Oil, Coal. 


.380 

44 

44 

44 

Pork. 


.330 

4 4 

44 

44 

Potatoes. 


.180 

44 

44 

44 

Salt, Fine. 


.300 

44 

4 4 

44 

Salt, Coarse. 


.350 

4 4 

44 

4 4 

Vinegar. 


.400 

44 

44 

“ 

Water Lime.. 


.300 

44 

44 

44 

Whisky. 


.380 

44 

44 

44 

One ton is 2,000 lbs. 


One cord is 128 cubic feet. 







































31 


Amount of material necessary in constructing one mile of track, allow¬ 
ing for loss and waste incident to haste in construction: 


If 471b. rail... 

If 56 lb. rail.. 

If 60 lb. rail. 

. 73 5-7 tons 

..88 tons 

Length of 

Rail 

Number 

Splices 

1 Number 

| Bolts & Nuts 

Ties... 

Spikes, % .... 

Spikes, full. 

Splices. 

Bolts, Hex.. . . 

Bolts, common. 

Nut locks, Verona. 

Wfl.shp.rs 

. 4,500 lbs 

. 6,000 lbs 

. 1,100 lbs 

. 1,325 lbs 

. 1,420 lbs 

SO lha 

30 feet 

28 feet 

27 feet 

25 feet 

24 feet 

704 

754 

782 

844 

880 

1,408 

1,508 

1,564 

1 ,6S8 

1,760 





To calculate tlie number of gross tons of rails for a mile of track, mul¬ 
tiply the weiglit of the rail per yard by one and four-sevenths (1 4-7), and 
the product will be the exact weight in tons per mile. Take, for instance, 
a 50 lb. rail: 50x1 4»-7 equals 78 4-7 tons per mile; or take a 56 lb. rail: 56x1 4-7 
equals 88 tons per mile. 


Distance 

Between Ties. 

Number of 

Spikes 

Weight of 

Spikes 

Number Kegs 

150 lbs. each 

Using Ties 24 inch centers. 

11,254 


40 kegs 

Using Ties 26 inch centers... 

10,502 

5,625 lbs. 

37K* kegs 

Using Ties 28 inch centers. 

9,812 

5,250 lbs. 

35 kegs 

Using Ties 30 inch centers.. 

9,204 

4,950 lbs. 

33 kegs 


The standard spike, 9-16x5| inches runs 280 to the keg of 150 pounds. 

All ties should be hewn from sound, live, White Oak, Burr Oak, Post 
Oak, Black Walnut, Mulberry, or Coffee Bean timber, they should be eight 
(8) feet long when squared at the ends, and the ends should be either 
squared or beveled, not less than six (6) nor more than seven (7) inches 
thick—hewn straight and smooth, and out of wind, with two hewn parallel 
faces of not less than eight (8) inches in width at the narrowest part of each 
hewn face. They should be entirely free from rot and rotten knots, free 
from splits, shakes, wanes, large and black knots. All bark should be re¬ 
moved. 


LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 

The reader will observe in the abstract of cases reported, a few conflict¬ 
ing decisions. These are attributed to the different statutary provisions in 
some of the states. 



































32 


Responsible for Reasonable Amount of Baggage. —Common carriers 
are only responsible for the loss of a reasonable amount of baggage.—New 
Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Moore 40, Miss. 39, 1886. 

A person who, under pretence of having baggage transported places in 
the hands of the carrier’s agent, merchandise, jewelry and other valuables, 
is guilty of fraud, which releases the carrier from its common law liability.— 
Cincin. & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Marcus, 38 Ill. 219, 1885. 

Where a railroad company knowingly receives and transports in cars 
accompanying its passenger trains, the property of a passenger other than 
his baggage it assumes in reference thereto the liability of a common 
carrier of merchandise.—Hannibal R. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wallace 262, 1870. 

A railroad company selling through tickets over its own and other 
roads, is liable for the safety of baggage to the point of destination.— HI. 
Cent. R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 Ill.,, 33, 1860. 

A carrier is not bound to forward goods to a person who claims to be 
the consignee, if they are not accompanied with any instruction or bill 
of lading, and the claimant produces no authority from the consignor 
for their delivery; although they are marked with the initials of the claim¬ 
ant’s name.—Tenn. v. Western R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 283, 1869. 

The right of a carrier to limit its common law liability by contract, if 
made fairly and advisedly on behalf of the shipper, cannot be denied; but 
the mere fact that the bill of lading given contains a clause exempting the 
carrier from loss of the goods by fire, cannot be held conclusive of such a 
contract.—Merchant’s Dispatch Transportation Co. v. Leyson, 89 Ill., 43, 
1876. 

A railway company is not liable for damages resulting from advance¬ 
ments made upon a bill of lading fraudulently issued by one of its station 
agents.—B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Wilkins, 44 Md., 11, 1875. 

A railroad company is not bound by the contract of its agent for trans¬ 
portation beyond the termini of its road, in the absence of express author¬ 
ity given him in that respect, and where the making of such contracts has 
not become an established business of the road by the custom of those hav¬ 
ing general authority in its management. — Wait v. Albany & Susquehanna 
R. R. Co., 5 Lansing (N. Y.), 475, 1871. 

Notice to an agent of a corporation relating to any matter of which he 
has the management and control, is notice to the corporation.—Pittsburg, 
Ft. Wayne & Chicago R. R. Co. v. Ruby, 38 Ind., 294, 1871. 

An agent who has been robbed of the money of his principal may show 
that banks and other custodians of money usually look to their vaults and 
safes for security, and not to the outside fastenings of the buildings.— 
Wright v. Central R. R. Co., 16 Ga., 38, 1854. 

Where a local railroad agent was instructed to remit daily to the head¬ 
quarters of the company all sums of money received over $10, it was held 
that he would be allowed a reasonable time, in view of his other duties, to 


33 


make his remittance, and not liable for money stolen from him which he 
did not receive in time to remit as instructed.—Robinson v. Ill. Cent. R. 
R. Co., 30 la. 401, 1870. 

The principal is under an implied obligation to indemnify an innocent 
agent for obeying his orders, where the act would have been lawful in res¬ 
pect to both, if the principal really had the authority which he claimed. 
—Howe v. Buffalo, N. Y. and Erie R. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 297, 1867. 

A corporation will be affected by the fraudulent conduct of its agents, 
in like manner as if such agents had been acting for private employers. 
—Nugent v. Cincin., Harrison, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Disney, (Ohio) 302, 1858. 

The acceptance of a bill of ^lading binds the shipper and precludes him 
from alleging ignorance of its terms.—Werthemer v. Penn. R. R. Co., 1. 
Federal Reporter 232, 1880. 

Common carriers must recognize transfers of bills of lading and con¬ 
signments of goods, and unless protected by proper vouchers cannot 
always assume to deal with consignments as actually and beneficially 
belonging to the consignee.—Walker v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. R. Co., 49 
Mich. 446, 1882. 

A consignor of goods, after they have passed from the hands of the 
company with which the contract of affreightment was made, into the 
hands of another company, has the same right to change their destination 
while in transit by taking a new bill of lading as if the first company had a 
continuous line to the place of destination.—Southerland v. First National 
Bank of Peoria, 6 Amer. & Eng. R. R. Cases (Ky.), 368, 1881. 

A stipulation in a bill of lading given by a common carrier that all 
claims for damages shall be made by the consignee at the delivery station 
before the article is taken away, is reasonable. Therefore in an action 
against a railroad company for damages to certain cotton, when the 
plaintiff had not complied with such stipulation contained in his bill of 
lading, held that he was not entitled to recover.—Capehart v. Seaboard & 
Roanoke R. R. Co., 77 N. C. 355, 1877. 

The rules and regulations of a corporation made for the government of 
the conduct of its officers do not become terms and conditions of the 
bond of its officers unless such an intention is expressed on the face of the 
bond.—Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co. v. Casey, 30 Grattan Va., 218, 
1878. 

Where the bond of an agent was couched in general terms it was held 
that the promotion of the agent did not affect the liability upon the bond.— 
Collier v. Southern Express Co., 32 Grattan, Va., 718, 1880. 

Where an agent was appointed to sell tickets at the office in M., and 
afterwards the duties and responsibilities of another ticket office in the 
same place were added to his charge, held that this was such a change in 
his duties as would discharge the sureties upon his bond. Mumford v. 
Memphis & Charlestown R. R. Co., 2 Lea., (Tenn.), 393, 1879. 


34 


In action upon agent’s bond for money due from sucli agents lie may 
plead as a set-off the services rendered by him as agent.—Baltimore & 
Ohio B. R. Co. v. Jameson, 13 W. Va., 833, 1878. 

When it appears that plaintiff was authorized to receive freight for cer¬ 
tain parties and in pursuance thereof went to the depot of defendant and 
there demanded the same of the agent who was in charge of the depot and 
authorized to receive and deliver freight, and while so demanding it the 
said agent made an assault upon him does not appear said assault was made 
in ejection or attempting to eject lpaintiff from the depot or in preventing 
or attempting to prevent him from committing any injury to the property 
of the defendant, or from transgressing any rules for the regulation of its 
depot and the transaction of its business held, that it did not appear that 
the company was liable for the assault, and that only the agent who 
actually made it was liable.—Hudson v. Missouri, Kansas & Tex R. R. Co., 
16 Kans., 470, 1876. 

If a passenger on a railway brings a trunk to the depot, which in fact 
contains costly jewelry of the value of $30,000, and gives no notice of its 
contents, and has the same checked as ordinary baggage, and there is noth¬ 
ing about the trunk indicating its contents, and the same is consumed by 
fire Avhile being carried, the company not being guilty of gross negligence 
in respect to the origin of the fire or in attempting to extinguish the same 
and save the baggage, it cannot be held liable for the contents of the 
trunk.—Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Carron, 73 Ill. 348, 1874. 

It is the duty of a passenger having valuable merchandise in his trunk 
or valise, and desiring its transportation, to disclose to the carrier the na¬ 
ture and value of the contents, and if the latter then chooses to treat it as 
baggage, without extra compensation, the liability of the common carrier 
will attach, but not otherwise.—Mich. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Carron, 73 Ill. 318, 
1874. 

If a passenger delivers to a railway company a trunk containing samples 
of merchandise belonging to a third person whose agent he is, to be carried 
to a place to which he has a ticket, the only contract entered into is for the 
transportation of the personal baggage of the agent, and company is not 
liable in contract to the owner of the trunk for its loss or'in tort, except for 
its gross negligence ; and evidence that k large part of defendant’s business 
consists in carrying passengers known as commercial travelers with trunks 
like the one lost, containing merchandise, that such trunks, known as sam¬ 
ple trunks, are of special construction, and that such travelers purchase 
tickets for the ordinary passenger trains and receive checks for their trunks, 
and are transported for the price of the ticket, is immaterial.— Aili ng 
Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 126 Mass. 121, 1879. 

When a through line for transportation of passengers and freight is es¬ 
tablished by the owners of different railroads, the first carrier who receives 
the fare for the whole route and gives a through check for baggage, becomes 




35 


liable for any loss or injury, not only in its own line, but on any other road 
in the connecting line throughout the entire distance.—Croft v. B. & 0. R. R. 
Co., I McArthur (Dist. Columbia) 492, 1874. 

Station agents are to be presumed to have power to make contract for 
their railroads for the transportation of freight. The limitations on their 
powers the public cannot take notice of, unless they are conveyed to the 
public in such a manner as to authorize the inference that shippers are 
apprised of them.—Pratt v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 62 Mo. 527, 
1876. 

The question whether or not a railway station agent has as such agent 
authority to bind the company by a contract to furnish cars to a shipper at 
his station at a particular time is one of fact and not of law.—Wood v. Chi¬ 
cago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. R. Co., 59 la. 196, 1882. 

A cashier or clerk of a railway company who has charge of its moneys, 
is under a legal liability to the company to take charge of and preserve its 
funds so intrusted to him; and if he loans the company’s money to a fellow 
servant without the order or direction of any one having the right to give 
such order, he will be liable personally to the company for the same, and 
if he pays the same he cannot recover it back.—St. Louis, Alton & Terra 
Haute R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 85 Ill. 467, 1877. 

A railroad company engaged in the business of transporting cattle, 
assumes all the responsibility of a common carrier; and it can limit such 
responsibility only to the same extent and by the same means as in the 
transportation of other property.—Kans. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Kan. 
23, 1871. 

A common carrier may contract that the owner of live stock shall 
assume all risk of damage from whatever cause in the course of transporta¬ 
tion.—Betts v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 21 Wis. 80, 1866. 

When a lot of cattle is placed in the cars for transportation in time for 
the next regular cattle train, the station agent of the company at the place 
of shipment knowing the fact, it is the duty of the company to carry the 
cattle by the next train, and by its neglect so to do, it will be liable for 
whatever damage may resnlt to the cattle by reason of the delay.—Ill. Cent. 
R. R. Co. v. Waters, 41 Ill. 73, 1866. 

Where two lots of live stock shipped by different owners, upon a rail¬ 
road to the same consignee, were by a mistake of the clerk in the office of 
the station agent at the place of destination, all included in a single bill of 
charges to one of the shippers, to whom both lots of stock were delivered, 
it was held, that the owner who thereby lost his property, could recover 
from the company its value.—Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co. v. Ames, 
40 Ill. 249, 1866. 

Watch and chain and diamond pin held to be wearing apparel. Clause 
in contract limiting liability of carrier in event of loss of baggage to $100, 
held not valid, but that passenger may recover $1,400 value of jewelry 
lost. 


36 


In July, 1884, Samuel H. Coward bought a ticket in Memphis, Tenn., of 
agent of "East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company for himself 
and wife, to Waukesha, Wis., and return, for $27.95 for round trip, the reg¬ 
ular fare being $38.50, over Memphis & Charleston to Grand Junction, Illi¬ 
nois Central to Chicago, and Chicago & North-Western Railroad to Waukesha, 
and signed a contract which it appears he perfectly understood, that in 
the event of loss of baggage, none of the railroad companies on the line of 
travel should be liable for more than $100. The passengers reached their 
destination in due time, but the trunk of Mrs. Coward did not arrive on 
same train, nor for several hours after the passengers. It was found that 
the lock had been filed, the trunk opened and a watch and chain and dia¬ 
mond pin worth $1,400 had been abstracted. Held, that such jewelry 
being usually worn by ladies in the circumstances of Mrs. Coward, at summer 
resorts, was included in wearing apparel. Held, further, that carrier could 
not limit his liability as against his negligence or bad faith or less than 
the real value of the apparel lost. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,400.— 
Samuel H. Coward and wife v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. Decided by 
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson, June 10, 1885. 

Words on a ticket or baggage check limiting the liability of the carrier 
to a specific amount for loss of baggage are not binding on a passenger, un¬ 
less, with knowledge of such limitation, he agrees to it.—B. & 0. R. R. Co. 
v. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 1881. 

Plaintiff left his baggage in defendant’s station, receiving a deposit 
ticket thereof. On Sunday evening he came for his baggage, and the office 
was shut, and he thereby delayed from taking another train out of the city. 
The defendant was held liable for the damages.—Stallard v. Great Western 
Railway Co., 2 Best & Smith 419; 110 E. C. L. 419, 1862. 

With the assent of a common carrier, the baggage of travelers may be 
left at a railway station without notice to it or its agent; and such assent 
may be implied from its course of business or custom of the carrier.— 
Green v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R’y Co., 41 Iowa 410, 1875. 

The delivery by a carrier of personal baggage to the wrong person, al¬ 
though by mistake, through imposition or upon a forged order, will not 
excuse it; the carrier will 'remain r responsible for the goods lost.—Waldron 
v. Chicago & North-Western R. R. Co., 1 Dakota 351, 1876. 

Plaintiff was a passenger upon defendant’s line from R. to P., having 
the usual check for her baggage. On arrival at P., she informed the station 
baggage-master that she desired to leave The trunk for a few days. The 
baggage-master ^replied that he was not allowed to keep baggage with the 
checks on it; that if she gave up her check the baggage would be perfectly 
safe. This she did, and the trunk was left. It was subsequently delivered 
to one falsely claiming it. In an action to recover its value, held, that the 
declaration of the agent was, in substance, a notification to plaintiff that he 
was without power to continue in force the obligation of the company in 
respect to the baggage indicated by the check, and the surrender of the 


37 


check was, in effect, an admission of the performance of that obligation. 
That in the absence of evidence tending to show that the agent had power 
thereafter to bind it by a new agreement, or that the company had acqui¬ 
esced in the exercise by him of such power and it appearing that it was in 
violation of the regulations of the company, defendant could not be held 
liable.—Mattison v. N. Y. Cent. E. E., 76 N. Y. 381, 1874. 

If the passenger does not call for his baggage on arrival, the carrier 
cannot abandon it; but his responsibility as carrier ceases after a reasonable 
time has elapsed to enable the owner to claim it and a modified liability 
like that of warehousemen, supervenes.—Mattison v. N. Y. Cent., 76 N. Y. 
381, 1879. 

Where a common carrier receives goods for shipment, and gives the con¬ 
signor a bill of lading, in which the goods are described to be in apparent 
good order, the bill of lading is prima facie evidence, in a suit against the 
carrier, that the goods were in good conditon.—Ill. Cent. E. E. Co. v. Cobb, 
72 Ill. 148, 1874. 

Where a railway passenger on arriving at his place of destination takes 
his baggage in his own exclusive control, but afterwards, for his own con¬ 
venience, hands it to the baggage master at the depot to be kept until sent 
for, the company is not liable for the baggage as a common carrier, but it 
is liable for gross negligence as a gratuitous bailee.—Minor v. Chicago & 
Northwestern E. E. Co., 19 Wis. 40, 1865. 

Blockade of freight. —A railway company may on account of unusual 
press of business, or inadequacy of rolling stock, decline to receive freight 
but if it receive the freight it must be forwarded without delay or the com¬ 
pany will be liable for the damages caused thereby.—Faulkner v. South 
Pacific E. E. Co., 51 Mo., 3 Ill, 1873. 

An action to recover damages for injuries received by falling from a 
higher to a lower station platform in which the plaintiff, who obtained a 
verdict, alleged that the station platforms were insufficiently lighted. Held, 
on the subject of the duty of appellant to the appellee in this case, the court 
correctly gave the following charge : “ It was the duty of the defendant at 
said station where it received passengers, to have and keep in reasonably 
safe condition suitable approaches to and from its cars to its station house, 
and at night-time, if needed, to have sufficient light to enable passengers 
who might wish to take passage on night trains, to pass with safety from 
the station house to the trains.”—I. & G. N. E. E. v. Stewart, 57-Texas, 166. 

A High Platform amounts to Negligence. —It is negligence in a rail¬ 
road company to have a station platform higher than the steps of passen¬ 
ger coaches, and to require in consequence that passengers should enter 
from the platform into a baggage car, and thence to proceed to the coach or 
coaches assigned to passengers. The company is liable in damages for in¬ 
juries received by passengers while they are seeking to board a train in that 
manner at the request of the conductor.—Supreme Court of Louisiana, 
June, 1885, Sarah P. Turner v. The V. S. & P. E. E. Co. 


33 


Bill of Lading. —A bill of lading contained a stipulation tliat the 
freight on the articles to be transported should be $120 per car, and the 
farther statement that such articles were to be used for farm purposes. In 
an action by the shipper to recover the difference between such stipulated 
rate and full rate which he had been obliged to pay, the carrier answered in 
substance that the stipulated rate was a reduced rate given only on articles 
to be used “for farm purposes” and at the time the bill of lading was made 
out, the shipper falsely represented that they were to be so used, and it 
was with such understanding that both stipulations were inserted in the 
bill of lading, while in fact the articles were not to be used for “farm pur¬ 
poses” Held that the stipulation that the articles were to be used for 
“farm purposes” was as binding as the stipulation that they should be 
carried at a reduced rate and that the shipper could not recover.—Fry and 
others v. Louisville, 1ST. A., etc. By. Co., October 16, 1885. Northwestern 
Reporter, vol. 2, No. 6. p 771. 

Carrier of Good-Bills of Lading.— A. purchased lumber from B. 
intending to ship it to Chicago, but B. attached it for non-payment of pur¬ 
chase money, whereupon it was agreed by A., B. and the station-agent, that 
the bill of lading should be issued to B. as consignor, and that he should 
hold it as security for his claim against A., and sufficient money to pay B.’s 
'claim. The bill of lading was issued without filling in any consignee, and 
was signed and delivered with a draft attached which the bank had dis¬ 
counted to the cashier of the bank. A. directed the station agent if he re¬ 
ceived no more instructions, to ship the lumber to Chicago to C., which 
was done, and the lumber was delivered to C. before the bank knew of it. 
Held in an action by the bank against the railroad for delivering the 
lumber to C,, that parol evidence was not admissible to show that the name 
of the consignee had been omitted by agreement of the parties; that the 
bank had a right to rely on the bill of lading, and was titled to recover.— 
Garden Grove Bank v. Humeston & S. B. Co., Sup. Ct. Iowa, 25, N. W. Bep. 
761. 

Carriers.—Carrier of Passengers.—Negligence.—Passenger Board¬ 
ing Train After Signal for Starting. —The purchase of a ticket at a rail¬ 
road ticket office gives no rights to the passenger, except upon the condition 
of presenting himself for passage before the signal is given for a start; and 
if he comes after that it is not negligence, as against him, that the train 
starts in obedience to it. The sale of a railroad ticket at a ticket office, be¬ 
fore the arrival of the train, gives no specific right to the purchaser to take 
that particular train which is then at the station, or is’ about to arrive, and 
the train need not be held beyond the regular time of starting to allow him 
to get upon it.—Ruger C. J. Andrews and Danfortli, J. J. dissent.—Paulitisch 
v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., Court of Appeals of New York, 6 N. E. 
Rep. 577. 


39 


Rights of Consignor of Freight.—Insufficient Mode of Levying 
Attachment. —A railroad receiving freight from a vendor consigned to the 
vendee is the agent of the latter and liable to him only for its safe delivery. 
The vendor having no further authority over it except the right of stoppage 
in transitu, it cannot be attached for his debt. The levy of an attachment 
on his goods in the hands of a railroad for transportation by tacking a copy 
of the order of attachment upon the goods and notifying an agent of the 
road thereof is insufficient.—L. & N. Ed. Co. v. Spaulding, Superior Court 
of Kentucky, September 30, 1885. 

Action to Recover the Value of a Trunk and its Contents.— The 
evidence for the plaintiff is, substantially, that she was going to Chicago at 
4:25 o’clock on the morning of November 17, ’82, and asked one Quinby to 
find her a man to take her trunk to the depot. At 9:30 of the evening be¬ 
fore, an expressman came, took the trunk to the depot and put it under the 
eaves in the dry, near the baggage room door, as Quinby had told him. 
Quinby saw the baggage man and said “Here’s a trunk for No. 5, put it in 
the baggage room.” He replied: “No, leave it out there, it will be all 
right.” The baggageman receives baggage for the company when a ticket 
is presented, and then gives a check for it, but not without. The baggage¬ 
man denied his expression to Quinby that night. The trunk was lost from 
the platform. * * * 

A railroad company may receive a trunk as baggage, and become liable 
for its loss as such before transit, upon the express or implied understand¬ 
ing that the owner is to become a passenger, although he has neither pur¬ 
chased a ticket nor paid fare. In such case the express or implied agree¬ 
ment to become a passenger makes the owner in such a sense a passenger 
as to make the railway cfompany liable for the loss of his baggage up to the 
time when the train leaves, and it is ascertained that the owner has not 
kept his agreement by becoming a passenger. If a railway company is 
willing to receive a trunk as baggage and assume the responsibility of hold¬ 
ing it as such upon the express or implied agreement of the owner to be¬ 
come a passenger, there is nothing to prevent it from so doing. The evi¬ 
dence shows that the trunk was so received and that appellee kept her 
agreement by buying a ticket and becoming a passenger. Appellee was not 
bound by any regulations limiting the authority of the baggageman as to 
the time when he should receive baggage, unless he had notice or was put 
up on inquiry. Persons have no right to send baggage to the depot to be 
kept for an unreasonable time. If the time is unreasonable, that might be 
noticed, but from 9:30 p. m. until 4:25 a. m., cannot be regarded as unrea¬ 
sonable, nor sufficient to put an appellee upon notice.—Lake Shore & Mich. 
Cent. Ry. Co. v. Mary Foster, Ind. Sup. Ct., Dec. 29, 1885. 

Baggage.—Reasonable Time for Delivery. —A railroad company is an 
insurer of the baggage of a passenger so long as the relation of a common 
carrier exists, and that exists as to such baggage until its arrival and dis- 


40 


charge at the place of destination and until the owner has had reasonable 
time and opportunity to claim and take it away. If it is not called for within 
such reasonable time, the company may store it in a secure warehouse and 
from thence its liability as carrier ceases and that of warehouseman is as¬ 
sumed. 

The reasonable time in which the owner must apply for his baggage 
when it is transported by the same train on which he himself travels is di¬ 
rectly after its arrival and transfer to the platform, making due allowance 
for the confusion occasioned by the arrival and departure of the train and 
for the delay necessarily caused by the crowd on the platform. 

And if a party is informed that his baggage has not arrived on the train 
he came on, and he gives no directions concerning it and no information to 
identify himself so notice of its arrival can be given, it is his duty to make 
inquiry for it the first convenient opportunity after the arrival of the next 
train and within a reasonable time.—Chicago & Alton Ed. Co. v. Addizoat, 
Appellate Court of Illinois, March 3, 1886. 

Though a railway company may limit its liability by notice, yet the 
terms of the notice must be clear and explicit, and the person Avith whom 
the carrier deals must have knowledge of the terms of the notice; and where 
the notice is in the English language and the passenger is a German, it is 
incumbent upon the carrier to prove the knowledge by the passenger of the 
limitation in the notice.--Camden & Amboy E. E. Co. v. Baldauf, 16 Penn., 
Sta., 67, 1851. 

Eeceipt. —If a shipper takes a receipt for his goods from the carrier, 
containing conditions limiting the liability of the carrier with a full knowl¬ 
edge on the part of the shipper of such conditions and intending to assent 
to the restrictions contained in them, it becomes his contract as fully as if 
he had signed it.—Illinois Central E. E. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 Ill., 88, 1870. 

Contract. —A railway company is bound by its freight agent’s agree¬ 
ment to carry goods within a specified time, if it be a reasonable time.— 
Strohn v. Detroit & Milwaukee E. E. Co., 23 Wis., 126, 1868. 

A mere statement by the agent that the ordinary time for transportation 
over a proposed route is a certain number of days, does not constitute an 
agreement to carry in that time.— lb. 

Where a bill of lading is made out by the carrier and accepted by the 
shipper, all previous parol agreements are merged in it.—Bostwick v. Bal¬ 
timore and Ohio E. E Co., 55 Barbour (N. Y.), 137, 1869. Long v. New York 
Central E. E. Co., 76, 1872. 

A common carrier connot contract against liability for loss from his 
own ordinary negligence. Such a condition is void as against public pol¬ 
icy.—Indianapolis, Pittsburg and Cleveland E. E. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind., 
448, 1871. 

Notice to Limit Liability. —A notice limiting the liability of a car¬ 
rier, even though brought home to the knowledge of the shipper, will not 


41 


exempt the carrier from liability for negligence.—Blumenthall v. Brainerd, 
38 Vt., 402, 1866. Mann v. Birchard, 40 lb. 326,1867. 

Although a common carrier cannot, by a general notice to such effect, 
free itself from all liability for property by it transported, yet by notice 
brought to the knowledge of the owner, it may reasonably qualify its lia¬ 
bility.—Smith v. North Carolina B. R. Co. 64 N. C., 235, 1870. 

Railroad Companies. — Obstructing Highway.—Negligence. —As a 
railroad company has no right to obstruct a highway with its cars for a 
longer period than five minutes at any one time, a violation of its duty in 
this respect is negligence, and if a party is injured by reason thereof, being 
free from fault on his own part, the company will be liable therefor. 

Where a party, in attempting to cross the track at a highway, is thrown 
out of his cutter and injured by reason of his horse becoming frightened 
by the proximity and position of cars that the railroad company has al¬ 
lowed to obstruct the highway for more than five minutes, and such party 
if free from negligence himself, the company will be held liable.—Gilbert 
v. Flint & P. M. Ry. Co., 51 Mich. 488; S. C. 16 N. W. Rep. 868, distinguished. 
—Young v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. Supreme Court of Michigan, April, 
1885. 

Carrier of Goods.—Limitation of Liability.—Negligence.—Valua¬ 
tion. —Where a contract of carriage, signed by the shipper, is fairly made 
with a railroad company, agreeing on a valuation of the property carried, 
with the rate of freight based on the condition that the carrier assumes li¬ 
ability only to the extent of the agreed valuation even in case of loss or 
damage by the negligence of the carrier, the contract will be upheld as a 
proper and lawful mode of securing a due proportion between the amount 
for which the carrier may be responsible and the freight he receives, and 
of protecting himself against extravagant and fanciful valuation.—Hart v, 
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. Law Record, vol. 12, p. 464. 

Carrier of Goods.—Connecting Lines.—Liability Beyond Terminus. 
—When a carrier received goods marked to a place beyond the terminus of 
his own line, without more, or without any further or special contract, 
he is only liable to carry safely to the end of his own route, and deliver to 
the next carrier on the usual route. Bill of lading, with condition on the 
back limiting liability to defendant’s own road, if goods are deliverable to 
a point beyond, upon notice to next carrier of readiness to deliver to them, 
is not evidence of a through contract. An offer by a common carrier to 
take car load lots of peas from N. to P. at 25 cents per 100 pounds is not an 
offer to carry N. to P., but only to take the goods for carriage to the end of 
the defendant’s own route, and then deliver them to the next carrier to 
forward.—Harris v. Grand Trunk Ry. Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 5 
Atlantic Rep. 305. 

Acceptance of Baggage Checks Proof of Contract to Carry as 
Baggage. — Liability as Warehouseman. —In this case D., a traveling sales¬ 
man, had three trunks with him containing samples of his goods, and he 


42 


had them checked as baggage to H. taking the ordinary baggage checks, 
and agreeing to pay, as freight, for all weight in excess of 200 pounds. The 
trunks were delivered at H. on, the arrival of the train, 9 p. m., but D. did 
not take them, as he went on to M. He returned to H. the next morning, 
Sunday, and still left the trunks at the station, not taking them to his 
hotel, as usual, and leaving the freight unpaid. The trunks had been 
placed in the baggage-room, and early on Monday morning they were 
burned in a fire which consumed the depot, through no negligence of the 
company. The employers of D. sued for the loss of the trunks and the goods 
in them, claiming that they were carried as freight, and the company de¬ 
fended on the ground that they held them as a warehouseman and not as a 
carrier. In the opinion affirming the judgment below in favor of the railway 
company, the court says: “The company accepted these trunks as baggage 
from D., and he accepted the baggage checks as for them. This settles the 
question whether they were baggage or not. Under the contract to carry 
the trunks as baggage the company were bound to deliver them at H. and 
keep them on the platform, or like place, for the passenger to surrender 
his check and take them. They were left with the company, however, and 
they stored them in the baggage-room, where they were burned. The 
company was liable as a warehouseman, and fire is not included in such a 
risk.”—Holger v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul E. E. Co. Supreme Court 
of Wisconsin. Opinion by Cassody, J. 

Connecting Lines.—Through Freight Contract.— When a railroad 
Company contracts for the shipment of goods over its own and several con¬ 
necting lines, it is a common carrier for the whole route, and liable as such 
for loss anywhere along the line. A carrier cannot limit its legal liability 
by publication or recitals in bills of lading not a part of the contract.— 
Central Ed. etc. v. Dwight Manufacturing Co. Supreme Court of Georgia, 
1886. 

Biles of Lading.—Common Carrier. —When the shipping clerk of a 
common carrier, with authority to issue bills of lading, by collusion with 
the alleged consignor fraudulently issues a bill to said consignor for a car¬ 
load of barley which was not delivered to said carrier nor shipped to plain¬ 
tiff, upon the faith of which bill of lading the plaintiff makes advances to 
the consignor as he had been accustomed to do upon prior bills, the com¬ 
mon carrier is estopped from denying the authority of the shipping clerk ; 
and is liable to make good to the plaintiff his loss thereby. Where such 
bill is issued in New York for goods delivered in Philadelphia, the law of 
New York must control in determining the carrier’s liability, as that is the 
lex loci contractus .—Brooks et al. v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Eailroad 
Company. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, July, 1866. (Pittsburg Legal 
Journal. 


43 


Family Tickets.—Expulsion Age.—Excessive Damages. —Tliis is an 
action to recover damages for being unlawfully and harshly expelled from 
defendant’s train. Trial was had and a verdict of judgment for $1,000 
awarded. The defendant appealed. The evidence showed that the plaintiff, 
over twenty-one years of age, took passage upon defendant’s train 
to Elgin. He presented to the conductor a family ticket, which was re¬ 
fused, solely on the ground that appellee was not entitled to ride upon the 
ticket as he was more than twenty-one years of age. Fare was refused and 
the conductor forcibly expelled him from the train at a station on the road. 
Plaintiff receivedno personal injury and no more force than necessary used 
to expel him. He was and had always lived with his father. Held, that a 
railroad ticket which on its face purports to be for the exclusive use of a 
man and his family authorizes a son who is residing with his father as a 
member of his family to ride upon the road, notwithstanding he may be 
over twenty-one years of age, unless informed by the giver when obtained 
that sons or daughters of age would not be included. Held, that where a 
party is forcibly and unlawfully ejected from a car,in the presence of other 
passengers, and the conductor publicly announces that he has refused to 
pay his fare, a jury may properly find from such facts that the party thus 
ejected suffered feelings of shame and humiliation, without any other proof 
on that subject. Held , that where a party was ejected from a railroad car 
unlawfully, and suffered no personal injury, and delayed only one day in 
reaching his home, pecuniary loss not more than $10, verdict for $1,000 was 
excessive and for this reason the judgment is reversed, and a new trial or¬ 
dered.—C. & N.-W. Ry. Co. v. Chisholm. Sup. Ct. of Ill. 

Liability of Connecting Bailboad Line. —A passenger bought of the 
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company, at Omaha, a coupon ticket 
from that place to the city of New York, calling for passage over the road 
of thatcompany to St. Louis, and from thence to New York over the Ohio & 
Mississippi, the Marietta & Cincinnati, the Baltimore & Ohio, the Philadel¬ 
phia, Wilmington & Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania railroad lines. The 
ticket had printed on its face : “In selling this ticket for passage over the 
other roads this company acts only as agent for them and assumes no res¬ 
ponsibility beyond its own line,” and the coupon over the Pennsylvania 
declared, “Issued by the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway on account of 
Pennsylvania Railroad,” which the company owning the latter road refused 
to accept, and on refusal to pay the regular fare demanded, ejected the 
passenger. The court held in this suit, which was brought by the passenger 
against the latter company, that the first-named company contracted with 
the passenger only as an agent of the defendant company.—Pennsylvania 
Railroad Company v. Connell. Supreme Court of Illinois. 

Cakkieb of Goods.—When not Liable fob Delay occasioned by Steik- 
ebs.—Liability fob Acts of Stbikebs.—A railroad may excuse delivery in 
the delay of goods caused by accident or misfortune, not inevitable or pro- 


44 


duced by the act of God. All that can be required of it in any emergency is 
that it shall exercise due care and diligence to guard against delay; and the 
facts that the originators of a strike by which plaintiff’s freight was delayed, 
had been employes of defendant, does not make it liable for failure to for¬ 
ward such freight, where it had other employes who were ready and willing 
to manage its trains and carry the stock, but who were prevented from do¬ 
ing so by mob violence, which defendant could not by reasonable efforts 
overcome. Such strikers cease to be in the service of the railroad, or in any 
sense its agents, for whose conduct it was responsible, when they struck. 
—Greismer v. Lake Shore & M. S. E. E. Co. Court of Appeals of New York, 
7 N. E. Rep. 828. 

Stoppage in Transit.—Delivery.— Where goods are removed by a rail¬ 
road company and 'placed in its warehouses to await payment of freight 
charges and a delivery to the vendor, the implication of the law is that the 
goods are still in transit and subject to the vendor’s right of stoppage.— 
Symus et al. v. Schotten et al. Supreme Court of Kansas, 1886. 

Carrier of Goods.—Change of Destination by Consignee.—Car¬ 
riage to Destination beyond Carrier’s Line.— Where a consignee, having 
his place of business at East St. Louis, was in the habit of receiving goods 
in car load lots billed at St. Louis, and had directed a carrier, whose line 
terminated at East St. Louis, to hold at East St. Louis all such goods car¬ 
ried by it, and consigned to him at St. Louis; held, that the carrier was 
justified in still delivering such goods to a connecting carrier, and forward¬ 
ing them to St. Louis in spite of such notification; that the carrier was 
entitled to have the jury so instructed; and that an instruction that such 
notice bound the carrier to deliver the goods at East St. Louis was erron¬ 
eous. Evidence that a consignee has on former occasions used similar bills 
of lading to the one involved in the case, and containing the same pro¬ 
vision limiting the carrier’s liability, is admissible as tending to show that 
he had knowledge of the limitation clause, and had assented to it. Where 
a consignee has accepted a bill of lading from a carrier, and afterwards 
brings suit against the carrier for breach of contract, it is for the court to 
tell the jury what, by the bill of lading, the contract is, and a reference of 
the question to the jury is erroneous. Where a carrier receives goods to carry, 
marked to a particular place beyond his line, he is bound, under an implied 
agreement from the marks and directions, to carry to and deliver at that place, 
although it be a place beyond his own line of carriage. While the carrier 
may, by contract with the shipper, limit his contract to one of carriage 
on his own line, the facts in the present case are held not to show such a 
contract.—Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey Co. v. Jaggerman and others. Supreme 
Court of Illinois, 4 N. E. Eep. 641. 

Penalty for Extortion and Unjust Discrimination.—Objections.— 
Eeasons for, etc.— A penalty against a railroad, or other common carrier, 
for extortion or unjust discrimination in carrying persons or property, is 
in the nature of a criminal statute, and must be strictly construed. A fail- 


45 


ure to furnish cars for the transportation of property is not such unjust 
discrimination as is contemplated in section 13 of the code, and treble 
damages cannot be recovered therefore. Where objections are properly 
taken, and the attorney fails to present the proper reasons therefor, the 
court may place them on the true ground, although not insisted on by 
counsel.—Bond v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. Supreme Court of Iowa, 10 
X. W. Rep. 892. 

Principal and Agent.—Negligence.—Declarations of Engineer as 
to Cause of Injury. —Declarations by an agent or servant employed to 
perform a certain duty are not admissible against the principal, unless 
they are part of the facts and circumstance of some act happening within 
the scope of the servant’s or agent’s employment. In an action of damages 
for injury to a child by a railroad train, the declarations of the engineer 
concerning the accident, made from three to five minutes after the. cas¬ 
ualty happened, are admissible against the principal as part of the res 
gestoe. —Durkee v. Cent. Pac. Rd. Co. Sup. Ct. Cal., 9 Pac. Rep., 99. 

Carrier.—Unendorsed Bill of Lading. —The delivery to the acceptor 
of a draft of an unendorsed bill of lading is sufficient to transfer the title 
to the property covered thereby. In such case the carrier is not liable to 
the shipper for the value of the goods, should the acceptor fail to pay the 
draft.—Jordan v. Railroad Company. Superior Court, Indiana. 

Liability of Carrier Under Fictitious Bill of Lading.— In Brooks 
v. Railroad, the supreme court of Pennsylvania, October, 1885, decides that 
a railroad company is liable to innocent third parties upon a fictitious bill 
of lading issued by the shipping clerk of the railroad, in collusion with a 
consignor, the ’goods not 1 being received. This decision is directly con¬ 
trary to the case of Pollard v. Vinton decided by the supreme court oTthe 
United States, March, 1882, (see 15th Otto. 7), and is against the weight of 
authority elsewhere. It is to be regretted that this divergence should con¬ 
tinue, especially with regard to cases of a commercial character. In such 
cases it would be far better if the State courts would follow the decisions of 
the United States supreme court, where the questions have been directly 
decided. Whatever may be the true principle, it is more satisfactory to the 
commercial community to have uniformity rather than have the question 
of liability fluctuate and depend upon the court in which the case should 
be heard.—The American Law Record, Febuary, 1886, p. 504. 

Common Carrier.—Failure to Carry Freight as Agreed.—Complaint. 
—-In an action against a railroad company for failure to carry certain cattle as 
agreed, a complaint averring, among other things, that the company agreed 
to receive and ship said cattle; th^t the plaintiff “delivered said cattle, * * * 
according to the terms of said understanding, at the stock-yards of the de¬ 
fendant; * * * and that the defendant, after the cattle had been placed 
in said yards, refused |to ship said cattle,” is good on demurrer. Where, 
irTsuch case, the evidence shows that the cattle were not shipped, because 


46 


in loading them several escaped through a defective fence around the cattle 
pen, and could not be caught in time, although the train was held about 30 
minutes over time at the request of the plaintiffs, and that the car was left 
at the place partially loaded, there can be no recovery, under such com¬ 
plaint, because no refusal to accept or carry the cattle is shown.—Louisville, 
N. A. & C. Ey. Co. v. Godman and others. Supreme Court of Ind., 4 N. E. 
Eep. 163. 

Carrier of Goods.—Damage to Eace Horses.—Evidence. —H. shipped 
five horses, and other property, by a railroad, in one car, under a bill of 
lading, signed by him, which stated that the horses were to be transported 
“ upon the following terms and conditions, w T hich are admitted and accept¬ 
ed by me as just and reasonable: First, to pay freight thereon” at a rate 
specified, “on the condition that the carrier assumes a liability on the stock 
to the extent of the following agreed valuation: If horses or mules, not ex¬ 
ceeding two hundred dollars each. * * * If a chartered car, on the stock 

and contents in same, twelve hundred dollars for the car load. But no car¬ 
rier shall be liable for the acts of the animals themselves, * * * nor for 

loss or damage arising from condition of the animals themselves, which 
risks, being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed by the 
owner, and the carrier released therefrom.” By the negligence of the rail¬ 
road company or its servants, one of the horses was killed, and the others 
were injured, and the other property was lost. In a suit to recover the dam¬ 
ages, it appeared that the horses were race horses, and the plaintiff offered 
to show damages based on their value, amounting to over $25,000. The tes¬ 
timony was excluded, and he had a verdict for $1,200. On a writ of error 
brought by him: Held, (1) the evidence was not admissible, and the valua¬ 
tion and limitation of liability in the bill of lading was just and reasonable, 
and binding on the plaintiff ; (2) the terms of the limitation covered a loss 
through negligence.—Hart v. Penn. E. E. Co., Law Eecord, vol. 12, p. 464. 

Carrier.—Limiting Liability by Contract.—Live Stock.—Notice of 
Claim. —While a common carrier cannot exonerate himself from liability for 
his negligence or misfeasance, yet he may, by special agreement, fairly 
made, limit his common-law liability, provided such limitation is reasonable 
and just, and does not contravene any law or a sound public policy. In an 
agreement between a railway company and a shipper, for the transportation 
of horses over the railway, there was a stipulation which provided that as a 
condition precedent to his right to recover damages for any loss or injury 
to the horses while in transit, the shipper would give notice in writing of 
his claim therefor to some officer of the said railway company, or its nearest 
station agent, before the horses were rentoved from the place of destina¬ 
tion, or from the place of delivery to the shipper, and before such horses 
were mingled with other stock. Held, that the agreement is reasonable, 
and, when fairly made, is binding upon the parties thereto.—Goggin v. 
Kansas Pac. Ey. Co., 12 Kan. 412.— Sprague v. Missouri Pac. Ey. Co., Sup. 
Ct. of Kan., 8 Pac. Eep. 465 and note. 


47 


Caebieb of Passengebs.—Stations and Platfobms.—Condition.— 
Rights of Passengebs.— A railroad company is bound to keep in safe con¬ 
dition for its passengers all that part of its stations and platforms where 
passengers are expressly or impliedly invited to go, and is bound, by its 
servants and agents, to exercise due care towards passengers using its sta¬ 
tions and platforms by its invitation. Where a passenger upon a railroad- 
train, upon leaving the train, was walking upon the platform of the station 
to a point where there was no crossing, for the purpose of crossing the 
tracks where she had no right to go, and either backed against or was struck 
by a truck standing on the platform, held, that as the intention in her mind 
to cross had not become an act, and as she might never have acted in ac¬ 
cordance with that intention, that she was still a passenger leaving the sta¬ 
tion of the railroad, and entitled to protection as much. Also, held, that the 
question of due care on the part of the passenger or the agents of the rail¬ 
road was a question for the jury. It cannot be held, as a matter of law, that 
it is the duty of a passenger, on leaving a railroad train, to take the shortest 
practicable course to the nearest highway, and that if he does not he be¬ 
comes a trespasser or licensee only.—Keefe v. Boston & A. R. Co., Supreme 
Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 7 N. E. Rep. 874. 

Common Cabeieb.—Insteuctions.—Deliveey.—Tendee.—Measuee of 
Damages.— The inhibition contained in article 1608, revised statutes, ap¬ 
plies only to cases on trial in justice’s court and not to cases on appeal in 
county court; but when the county court declines to deliver a charge to the 
jury, to be reversible error the refusal to charge must be shown to have 
prejudiced the rights of appellant. It is not sufficient that charges be asked 
when such charges did not enunciate correct principles of law applicable to 
the case. A consignee is not bound to receive his freight at any other than 
the point of destination. He may do so, however, and relieve the carrier 
from liability. An action will lie against a carrier for non-delivery of prop¬ 
erty at its destination, though partially injured, and that by the act of 
God. Where there is evidence adduced showing a tender of freight at a 
place other than the proper destination, the question of tender is one of 
law, and the court is not required to submit that issue to the jury. Where 
there is no evidence adduced as to the value of the use of goods lost by a 
carrier, and the requested charge also embodies a rule restricting and lim¬ 
ing the right of the plaintiff to recover the value of the goods without ex¬ 
plaining how such value is to be ascertained, the charge was correctly re¬ 
fused. The measure of damages for the loss of goods is their fair market 
value at the point of destination, with legal interest thereon from the date 
when they should have been delivered. The rule does not apply where 
the goods are second-hand. The mere failure of a consignor to inform the 
carrier of the value of the goods if not per se such fraud as will discharge 
the carrier. The consignor is not bound to disclose the value of goods un¬ 
less asked. Affirmed.—Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway v. Clark et ah 
Texas Court of Appeals. Opinion by White, P. J. 


48 


Suretyship .—Increase of Duties of Principal. —The condition of a 
bond given was to secure a railroad company for a faithful discharge of all 
duties of “said office or place (ticket seller in Boston) which are or may be 
imposed upon him under this or any future appointment.” L., the clerk, 
was paid, at first, $1,000 salary, and the capital of the company was $2,853,400, 
and he sold tickets over 1,040 miles of railroad, and three steamboat lines. 
A few years later the salary was increased to $1,800, the capital stock had 
grown to $4,997,600, and the tickets were sold over 2,250 miles of road and 
five steamboat lines,> The sureties refused to pay when it was discovered 
that the agent was in arrears, on the ground that they became surety for 
the existing risks and responsibilities of the place, and that the increase of 
business caused an increase of risk. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant 
appealed the case (Eastern Bailroad Company v. Loring) to the supreme 
judicial court of Massachusetts, where the judgment was affirmed. Judge 
Charles Allen, in the opinion, said: “We agree that any substantial change 
in his office, without his sureties’ consent, would discharge them from lia¬ 
bility. But in this case there was no such change. The name of his office 
or position and the nature of his duties remained the same; the only change 
was that his duties and compensation were increased in extent. Such in¬ 
crease was fairly within what the bond allowed.” 

Common Carriers.—Extortion.—Excessive Bates for Freight.— 
Where a common carrier fixes an excessive rate for freight, whicn a shipper 
pays for many years without objection, he must be deemed to have assented 
to the charge as reasonable, and to have voluntarily waived any objection 
thereto, and cannot recover back the excess in an action for extortion.— 
Killmer v. New York Cent. & H. B. [Bd Co. Supreme Court of New York, 
November 24, 1885. Northwestern Bep., vol. 3, No. 3, p. 293. 

Common Carrier.—Failure to Deliver within Beasonable Time not 
Conversion. —When a carrier fails to deliver goods,within a reasonable time, 
such failure per se will Jnot amount to a conversion, but is only a breach of 
contract.—Texas & Pacific By, Co. v . Martin, Texas Court of Appeals, Octo¬ 
ber, 1884. 

Notice.—General Bule Limiting Life of Ticket must be Made Known 
to Purchaser to Bind the Latter. —Plaintiff purchased an excursion ticket 
from Williamsport to Philadelphia and return, in August, 1879, and used the 
part for passage to Philadelphia at the time it was bought. In November, 
1881, he attempted to use the return part, and when he was on the Northern 
Central Bailroad, between Harrisburg and Dauphin, the conductor stopped 
the train and ejected him. The ticket had nothing printed on it showing 
that it must be used within a limited time. Held, that the Pennsylvania 
Bailroad was liable for the act of the conductor, as the jury found that he 
was one of their employes, and that a general notice, not shown to have 
been actually brought to plaintiff’s attention, that such tickets were only 


49 


good during the year they were sold, would not defeat plaintiff’s right of 
action.—Pennsylvania E. E. Co. v. Spiecker, Supreme Court of Pennsyl¬ 
vania. 

Ticket Obtained fbom E. E. Co. by Fraud, but Used by Innocent 
Purchaser, Invalid. —1. When the possession of a railroad passenger ticket, 
which entitles the holder to one first-class passage between points named 
therein, has been fraudulently obtained from the company, a person pur¬ 
chasing such ticket from the holder thereof, although for value and with¬ 
out notice of equities, acquires no title thereto. 

2. An agent, authorized to sell such tickets, and stamp and deliver the 
the same upon receiving pay therefor, cannot bind his company by stamp¬ 
ing and delivering such tickets without the knowledge and consent of its 
proper officers, to a third person, to be sold by him, and to be paid for 
when sold.—Frank v. Ingall, Eeceiver, etc. Supreme Court of Ohio. Sep¬ 
tember 30, 1884. 

Common Carrier.—Special Contract to Transport Circus Cars.— 
Liability.— A railroad company that contracts with a circus proprietor as a 
hirer, and not as a common carrier, to furnish men and motive power to 
transport his circus in special cars owned by him, said cars to be operated 
under the management, direction, order and control of the said proprietor, 
or his agent, and by means of his said employes as his agents, but to run 
according to the rules, regulations and time tables of the company, from a 
point designated to certain other points, at greatly reduced rates, with the 
privilege of stopping at places and times stated to give exhibitions, is not 
liable as a common carrier, and may stipulate for exemption from respon¬ 
sibility for damages caused by the negligence of its servants while in this 
special employment.—Coup v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Eailway Com¬ 
pany. Michigan Supreme Court, Jan., 1885. 

Strikers Interfering with Property. —As to the power of the court 
to punish strikers and others interfering with property in the custody of a 
receiver, where the court held that receivers are sworn officers of the court, 
and their agents and employes in operating the railway are, pro hac vice, the 
officers of the court. As such officers they are responsible to the court for 
their conduct; and if they willfully injure the property or endanger it, or 
seek to cripple its operation in the hands of the receivers, they can and 
will be made to answer therefor. At the same time these officers, and the 
property of the company in the custody of the court, are entitled to and 
must have the full protection that the court can give, under the laws of the 
land; and this, whether the grievance comes from within or without. 

' Who unlawfully interferes with property in the possession of a court 
is guilty of contempt of that court, and whoever unlawfully interferes with 
officers and agents of the court in the full and complete possession and 
management of property in the custody of the court is guilty of a con¬ 
tempt of court, and it is immaterial whether this unlawful interference 


50 


comes in the way of actual violence, or by intimidation and threats.—In re 
Higgins and others—Circuit Ct. N. D. Texas, April, 1886; 27 Federal Eep. 
443. 

Unloading. —Eailway companies are liable for want of ordinary care in 
their servants in unloading freight from their cars though the consignee 
has neglected to unload it, knowing it to be the rule of the carriers that 
he must unload freight and that if he did not unload it within a certain 
time the carriers would. Kimball v. Western E. E. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 542, 
1856. 

Carriers of Goods.—Eailway Company’s Contract Limiting Liabil¬ 
ity for Loss.—As a general rule common carriers cannot by contract limit 
limit their liability for loss occasioned by their negligence. Where, however, 
a shipper misrepresents the value of his articles for the purpose of getting 
reduced rates, it seems that he will be bound by a contract made by a rail¬ 
way company in good faith, fixing the amount of recovery for loss at the 
sum stated by the shipper as the value of his goods.—Eosenfieldr. Peoria D. 
& E. Ey. Co. Ind. Supreme Court, September 24,1885. Northeastern Eep., 
October 3, 1885. 

Common Carrier.—Authority to Eeship. —Where a common carrier 
delivers grain to a consignee it may not reship such grain at the instance 
of a third party unless it has been expressly authorized to do so by the 
consignee.—Peoria and Pekin Union Ey. Co. 2. Buckley et al. Illinois Su¬ 
preme Court, July 13, 1885. 

Eegulations for Handling Freight.—Liability for Unnecessary 
Belay and Expense.—Eight of Action.— Plaintiff’s employer discharged 
him because the appellee, company’s agents, would not permit him to enter 
its warehouse to check off freight, or to enter behind its counters to tran¬ 
sact business. Held, 1. Under some circumstances appellant might have 
an action against his employer. 2. The regulation of the company that 
persons engaged in handling freight from its depot should receive the 
same on the platform from its servants, and not enter the warehouse there 
to check off the freight; and that persons doing business with the company 
should transact the same over the counter instead of entering behind the 
same, were reasonable and valid. 3. The employer might have his action 
against the company for any unnecessary delay or expense occasioned by 
such regulations, but appellant can have no action against the company 
either for the consequences of the regulations or language used by the 
company’s agents when informing appellant of the regulations. Affirmed. 
—Donovan v. Texas & Pacific Eailroad Company. Supreme Court Texas, 
Texas, November, 1885. 

Corporation.—Eight to Make and Enforce Eeasonable Eules. —A 
corporation has a right to make reasonable bylaws for the regulation of its 
business. A rule by a telegraph company that “transient persons sending 
messages which require answer must deposit an amount sufficient to pay 


51 


for ten words. In such case tlie signal ‘thirty-three’ will be sent with the 
message, signifying that the answer is prepaid,” is a reasonable regulation, 
and a plaintiff in an action to recover the statutory penalty for failure to 
deliver a message, who refused to comply therewith by depositing twenty- 
five cents, cannot recover for the company’s omission to deliver.—Western 
Union Telegraph Co. v. John McGuire. Supreme Court of Indiana, Sept. 
16, 1885. 

Common Carrier.—Liability of.—Attachment of Goods En Route.— 
Plaintiff Notified of Attachment.—Notice Released Defendant.— The 
action was brought to recover a balance of $445.37 claimed to be due on ad¬ 
vances made to C. R. Kear, on a consignment of hay and oats shipped over 
the road. It had been urged that in May of last year a party giving the 
name of C. R. Kear and stating his firm to be C. B. Kear & Co., obtained 
from the plaintiffs $860, as an advance on five car-loads of hay and one car¬ 
load of oats, which he forwarded over the defendant’s road. He bad bought 
the merchandise without paying for it and a portion of it was attached on 
the way to satisfy the seller’s claim, only about half of the shipment reach¬ 
ing Lemont & Son. They endeavored to hold the railroad company respon¬ 
sible for the difference between the amount advanced to Kear and the sum 
realized from the hay and oats delivered. 

The court in deciding the case in favor of the railroad company, says: 
It is quite plain, on the facts stated, that the defendant is not responsible 
for the plaintiff’s loss. The Pennsylvania statute of June 13, 1874 (Purdon’s 
Digest, p. 441), governs the case. The object of this legislation was to re¬ 
lieve railroad companies and other carriers and bailees from the duty, sup¬ 
posed or actual, of defending suits against the property entrusted to their 
care. The plaintiff received notice of the attachments and it was his duty to 
appear and defend if he supposed any good could he accomplished by doing so. 
—Lemont & Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. Rd. Co. U. S. Circuit Court S. D. 
Penn., Oct. 1886. 

(See chapter with regard to protecting company’s interest: page 17; 
notice appended.) 

Carriers.—Delivery of Goods to Owner. —Where a railway company 
delivered to the owner goods which were in its warehouse, taking his re¬ 
ceipt therefor, and by an arrangement between the owner and the ware¬ 
house man and the baggage man a part of the goods were left in the ware¬ 
house, and subsequently lost, held , that the company was not liable for the 
goods lost, the baggage man having no authority to make any contract for 
the company, and that his permitting part of the goods to remain in the 
warehouse was his private arrangement, to which the company was not a 
party.—Mulligan v. Northern Pac. Ry Co. Supreme Ct. of Dakota, 29 N.W. 
Rep. 659. 


52 


Detention of Passenger.—Liability for Acts of Agents. —Action to 
recover damages for detention npon a train. Tlie plaintiff and wife in this 
case contracted with defendant company for a safe and speedy carriage 
from A. to B. The train upon which they took passage was willfully and 
unnecessarily stopped and side tracked en route by the conductor during a 
stormy night, and they were obliged to remain upon it all night and far in¬ 
to the next day, from inability to procure other accommodations. The wife 
became ill from the affects of the exposure, and experienced great suffering, 
from which her health was permanently injured. The company defended 
on the ground that the delay en route was the willful act of the conductor 
unauthorized or approved by the company, and claimed that the defendant 
was not liable for such unauthorized misconduct of a servant. Held, that it 
is no defense to an action against a railroad corporation for its failure to 
transport a passenger with proper dispatch, that the detention was a willful 
of act of the conductor in charge of the train. Held, that it is immaterial 
whether a breach of contract result from the negligence or the willfulness 
the company’s agents; if his act is within the scope of his employment and 
authority, the company is liable.—Weed v. Panama R. R. Co., New York 
Supreme Court. 

Master and Servant.—Dangerous Work Outside of Regular Em¬ 
ployment.—Liability of Master for Injury to Servant.— Where a mas¬ 
ter commands a servant to go outside of his regular employment to do a 
work which is attended with special danger, and the servant, in response 
to the specific commands of his master, goes and does the work in the way 
and at the time directed, the fact that the servant knew it was dangerous 
does not exonerate the master from responsibility, or make the servant 
guilty of contributory negligence, unless the character of the danger be so 
patent and so extreme that no one but a foolhardy, reckless man would 
attempt it. But where the servant has equal means of knowing the danger, 
so that the master and the servant stand equal in that respect, and the 
servant is not specifically commanded as to the time and manner in which 
the work may be done, but is told to do a particular thing, and has such 
discretion that he can have some control over the means, time and manner 
of doing the work, then, unless he does it in a way and with the means 
which will be safest, he is guilty of contributory negligence.—English v. 
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rd. Co. United States Circuit Court, Dis¬ 
trict Minnesota, September 11, 1885. 

Principal and Agent.—Carrier of Goods.—Liabilities.—Fictitious 
Bill of Lading. —In the case stated, submitted for the opinion of the court 
below, the following facts appear : The plaintiffs, Brooks & Harper, were 
commission merchants in the city of Philadelphia, having business rela¬ 
tions with F. C. Williams, a dealer in produce at Batavia, in the State of 
New York. On February 15,1881, P. J. Weiss, the shipping clerk of the de¬ 
fendant corporation at that place, gave to Williams a bill of lading in the name 


53 


of the company, purporting to be for a car-load of barley consigned to the 
plaintiffs. After passing through various hands the bill of lading, with an 
accompanying draft for $750, were received by the plaintiffs, and the draft 
accepted and paid. The barley never arrived, and the bill of lading proved 
to be fraudulent, Weiss never having received the barley for shipment. 
Subsequently another car-load of barley was received by the plaintiffs, and 
although they refused to accept the bill of lading and draft, the railroad 
company through mistake allowed the car to remain on the premises of the 
plaintiffs, who sold the barley and credited the proceeds to the account of 
Williams. The plaintiffs then demanded of the corporation defendant 
compensation for the fictitious bill of lading, which was refused on the 
ground that Weiss had exceeded his powers in contracting to transport 
goods which had not been received. The case stated asked that if the 
court was of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the loss 
sustained by non-delivery of the barley as specified in their bill of 
lading, judgment be entered for plaintiffs for $300.39, being the balance due 
upon the whole account; or if, in the opinion of the court, the defendant 
has a right to require an appropriation of the proceeds of the barley sold, 
judgment be entered for plaintiffs for $105.61, being the difference between 
the deficiency on the shipment covering the missing car; but if the court 
be of opinion that defendant is not liable at all, then judgment for defend¬ 
ant. The case was twice argued before the court below, who entered judg¬ 
ment in favor of the defendant, his honor, Judge Hare, delivering the 
opinion. On appeal, judgment reversed, and judgment in the case stated in 
favor of plaintiffs for $300.39, with interest from May 31, 1881, and costs.— 
Brooke and another v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Ed. Supreme Court 
of Pennsylvania, October 5, 1885. Atlantic Eep., November 4, 1885.. 

Bill of Lading.—Limiting Liability. —Where a shipper stipulates 
with a common carrier as to the value of property to be transported, his 
recovery, in case of loss, must be limited to the amount fixed in the con¬ 
tract. 

Plaintiff shipped at Jersey City five valuable race horses, with saddles 
and equipments, on a car of defendant company, to be delivered at St. Louis. 
The bill of lading, which was signed by both plaintiff and defendant, set 
forth that the horses were to be transported “ upon the following terms and 
conditions, which are admitted and accepted by me as just and reasonable: 
First, to pay freight thereon (at a rate specified) on condition that the car¬ 
rier assumes liability on the stock to the extent of the following agreed 
valuations: If horses or mules, not exceeding $200 each; if a chartered 
car, on stock and contents in the same $1,200 for the car load. But no car¬ 
rier shall be liable for the acts of the animals themselves, nor for loss or 
damage arising from the condition of the animals themselves, which risks, 
being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed by the 
owner, and the carrier released therefrom.” By the negligence of defend- 


54 


ant company, one horse was killed and others were injured and other prop- 
erty was lost. In the original action to recover damages it appeared that 
the horses were race horses, and plaintiff offered to show damages based on 
their value amounting to over $25,000. The trial court held that the re¬ 
covery must be limited to the amount fixed in the contract. On appeal, 
held, that evidence to show a greater value than that named in the bill of 
lading w T as not admissible, and that the valuation and limitation of liability 
in the bill of lading were just and reasonable and binding on plaintiff. 
Where a contract of the kind signed by the shipper in this case is fairly 
made, agreeing on a valuation of property carried, with a rate of freight 
based on the condition that the carrier assumes liability only to the extent 
agreed in the valuation, even in case of loss or damage by negligence of the 
carrier, the contract will be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of secur¬ 
ing a due proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be 
responsible and the freight he receives, so as to protect himself against 
extravagant and fanciful valuations. Judgment of circuit court affirmed.— 
Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. U. S. Supreme Court, November 
24, 1884. 

Stop-Over Ticket. —A passenger who, through the negligence of a 
conductor, is not furnished with a stop-over check to which he is entitled, 
and who, on attempting to resume his journey after a stop, is required by 
a second conductor to pay additional fare or leave the train, may elect to 
leave the train, and in that case he can recover from the company not 
merely the additional fare which he is subsequently obliged to pay in order 
to reach his destination, but all damages sustained by him as the direct 
and natural consequence of the fault of the first conductor.—Yorton v. 
Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Company. Supreme Court 
Wisconsin, November 25, 1884. 

Common Caeeiee.—Advancing Back Chaeges on Feeight. —It is not 
the duty of common carriers to pay antecedent charges on freight tendered 
to them by connecting carriers, even where it is customary so to do.—Balti¬ 
more & Ohio Railroad Company v. Adams Express Company. U. S. Circuit 
Court E. D. Missouri, October 21, 1884. 

Caeeiee.—Agent.—Limiting Liability. —1. The owner of property v 
shipped by an agent in his own name may sue the carrier for an injury 
thereto, being the real party in interest. 2. A common carrier may limit 
his liability as an insurer by express contract, but he cannot escape liability 
for negligence by the words “value not to exceed $100,” inserted in the 
bill of lading; such a stipulation is contrary to public policy and void.— 
Kansas City, St. Joseph and Council Bluffs Railroad Co. v. Simpson. Su¬ 
preme Court of Kansas, Nov. 9, 1883. . 

Peesonal Peopeety.—Baggage.— Where the duly authorized agent of 
a railway company receives personal property to be transported as baggage. 


55 


the company must account therefor as baggage, although in strict language 
it may not be baggage—Chicago, Bock Island & Pacific railway Co. v. 
Conklin. Supreme Court of Kansas, May, 1884. 

Purchase of Ticket.—Failure of Train to Stop at Station.— Plaint¬ 
iff purchased from the station agent of the defendant company, at A., a 
ticket for passage to B., at which point the agent assured her the train 
would stop; but the conductor of the train, which was a through express to 
C., refused to stop at B. and carried plaintiff through to C., where she was 
obliged to procure a carriage for B., and upon her arrival found her 
daughter, whom she came te see, dead. Held: that the company is respon¬ 
sible for the mistake or misdirection of the station agent and not for the 
refusal of the conductor. The measure of damages is the sum paid to re¬ 
turn to B., the value of her time and the inconvenience she suffered.—Mar¬ 
shal v. Bailroad Company. Supreme Court Missouri, December, 1883. 

Bill of Lading.—Special Valuation Clause.— Where a person volun¬ 
tarily represents and agrees that goods delivered to a carrier are of a cer¬ 
tain value, and the charge for transportation is based upon such valuation, 
such representation will be binding upon the party making it. 

The defendant company received from the Chicago, Bock Island & Pa¬ 
cific Bailway Companvat Chicago, Ill., 75 barrels of highwines, the property 
of the plaintiffs, which had been shipped from Peoria, Ill., for Boston, 
Mass., under a through bill of lading, in which, by agreement of the ship¬ 
pers and the initial carrier, the said merchandise was said to be of the 
value of twenty dollars per barrel. The defendant had no other knowledge 
or information of its value, and the charge for transportation was based 
upon such valuation. While on the defendant company’s line at South 
Bend, Ind., the car containing the shipment was, with its contents, 
completely destroyed by fire resulting from a collision caused by the 
negligence of the defendant company’s servants. Plaintiffs brought suit to 
recover $6,332.31, the actual value of the goods, whereas the shipping valu¬ 
ation was but $1,500. The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts 
in the Superior Court of Boston, and a decision rendered in favor of the 
defendant company upon the questions of law touching the validity of the 
special valuation clause in the bills of lading. Plaintiffs appealed. 

The court in delivering its opinion said: The bill of lading contained the 
stipulation that the goods were “shipped at an agreed valuation of twenty 
dollars per barrel, owners’ risk of leakage.” It also contained the agreement 
that “ in the event of the loss of any property for which responsibility at¬ 
taches under this bill of lading to the carriers, the value or cost of the same 
at the time and point of shipmeht is to govern the settlement, except the 
value of the articles has been agreed upon with the shipper, or is deter¬ 
mined by the classification upon which the rates are based.” The defend¬ 
ants had no knowledge of the value of the goods except that furnished by 
the statement of the shippers, and the charge for transportation was based 
upon this statement and valuation. 


56 


The only question presented is whether the plaintiffs can recover any 
more than the agreed valuation of the goods. The question whether a 
carrier can, by a special contract, exempt himself from liability for a loss 
arising from the negligence of himself or servants, is one which has been 
much discussed and upon which the adjudications are conflicting. If we 
adopt the general rule that a carrier cannot thus exempt himself from re¬ 
sponsibility, we are of opinion that it does not cover the case before us, 
which must be governed by other considerations. The defendants have not 
attempted to exempt themselves for liability for the negligence of their 
servants. They have made no contract for that purpose, but admit their 
responsibility; their claim is that the plaintiffs having represented and 
agreed that the goods are of a specified value, and having thus obtained the 
benefit of a diminished rate of transportation, are now estopped to claim 
in contradiction of their representation and agreement that the goods are 
of a greater value. 

It is the right of the carrier to require good faith on the part of persons 
who deliver goods to be carried or enter into contracts with him. The care 
to be exercised in transporting property, and the reasonable compensation 
for its carriage, depend largely on its nature and value, and such persons 
are bound to use no fraud or deception which would mislead him as to the 
extent of the duties or the risks which he assumes. It is just and reason¬ 
able that a carrier should base his rate of compensation to some extent upon 
the value of the goods carried. This measures his risks and is an important 
element in fixing his compensation. If a person voluntarily represents 
and agrees that the goods delivered to a carrier are of a certain value, 
and the carrier is thereby induced to grant him a reduced rate of compen¬ 
sation for the carriage, such person ought to be bound by his representa¬ 
tion and agreement. Otherwise he imposes upon the carrier the obliga¬ 
tions of a contract different from that into which he 1ms entered.—Dunlap 
v. Inter Steam Boat Company, 98 Mass., 371. Judson v. Western R. R. Co., 
6 Allen, 486. 

The plaintiffs admit that their valuation of the goods would be conclu¬ 
sive against them in case of a loss from any other cause except the negli¬ 
gence of the carriers or their servants, but contend that the contract does 
not fairly import a stipulation of exemption from responsibility for such 
negligence. We cannot see the justice of this distinction. Looking at the 
matter practically, everybody knows that the charges of a carrier must be 
fixed with reference to all the risks of the carriage, including the risk of 
loss from the negligence of servants. In the course of time such negligence 
is inevitable, and the business of a carrier'could not be carried on unless he 
includes this risk in fixing his rates of compensation. 


57 


When the parties in this case made their contract it is fair to assume 
that both had in mind all the usual risks of the carriage. It savors of re¬ 
finement to suppose that they understood that the valuation of the goods 
was to be deemed to be fixed if a loss occurred from some causes, but not 
fixed if it occurred from the negligence of the servants of the carrier. 

Such does not seem to us to be the fair construction of the contract. The 
plaintiffs voluntarily entered into the contract with the defendants; no ad¬ 
vantage was taken of them; they deliberately represented the value of the 
goods to be twenty dollars per barrel; the compensation for carriage was 
fixed upon this value; the defendants are injured and the plaintiffs are ben¬ 
efited by this valuation if it can now denied. We are of opinion that the 
plaintiffs are estopped to show that it was of greater value than that repre¬ 
sented. The plaintiffs cannot recover a larger sum without violating their 
own agreement. Although one of the indirect effects of such a contract is 
to limit the extent of the responsibility of the carrier for the negligence of 
his servants, this was not the purpose of the contract. We cannot see that 
any considerations of a sound public policy require that such contracts 
should be held invalid, or that a person who in such contract fixes a value 
upon his goods which he intrusts to the carrier should not be bound by his 
valuation. McCann v. Lond. & N. W. Eailroad, 7 H. & N., 437; S. C., 3 H. & 
C., 343; Eailrcad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S., 26; Musa v. American Exp. Co., 1 
Fed. Eep., 382; Hart v. Penn. Eailroad, 7 Fed. Eep., 630; Maguire v. Dins- 
more, 70 N. Y., 410. We are therefore of opinion upon the facts of this case 
that it was not competent for the plaintiffs to show that the value of the 
goods lost was greater than twenty dollars per barrel. Judgment affirmed.— 
Graves & Sons v. Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Eailway Co. Supreme 
Judicial Court Mass., March 4, 1884. 

Carrier.—Goods Not Delivered.—Loss by Fire. —A railway company 
is not a common carrier as to goods deposited near its station for transpor¬ 
tation but not delivered to it; and is therefore not liable for loss by fire.— 
Brown v. Atlantic & Air Line Eailway Co. Supreme Court South Carolina, 
1883. 

Stoppage in Transit. —The right of stoppage in transit by the vendor 
continues until goods have reached buyer and the delivery is complete. It 
i s not impaired or extinguished by service of process of garnishment upon 
the carrier.—Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eailroad Company v. Painter 
et. al. Supreme Court Nebraska, May 28, 1884. 

Telegraph Company.—Eepeating Message.— A stipulation contained 
in a form used by a telegraph company in its business operations, to the effect 
that it will not be responsible for mistakes in transmitting unrepeated 
messages is a reasonable one. Variations are not uncommon and are 
deemed venial in manuscript copyings from an original, and they are 
much more to be looked for in a case where a double translation of a com¬ 
munication has to be made, first, into telegraphic signals or sounds and 


58 


then from these restored to the original language. The electric ticks to be 
given at one end of the line, and to be interpreted and read at the other, 
are not articulate sounds like those of the human voice, and are much more 
liable to be misunderstood, and then the individual handwriting of the 
sender and his meaning maybe misunderstood. To guard against er ror, 
from these and other causes to which this mode of conveying intelligence 
is peculiarly exposed, it is deemed but a reasonable and fair precaution to 
secure entire correctness, that the message should be returned, so that 
it will be certainly known it has correctly been carried to the person to 
whom it was sent with the added compensation for its transmission both 
ways. The cases to this effect are numerous.—Lassiter v. Western Union 
Telegraph Company. Supreme Court, North Carolina, October Term, 1883. 

Common Caeeiee.—Exemption eeom Liability. —Where one company 
receives goods for shipment beyond its line, its notice that the goods are 
shipped “at owner’s risk” protects all the lines which may handle them until 
they reach their destination.—Kid v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway 
Company. Supreme Court, Kansas, July 3, 1884. 

Passengees.—Duty of Caeeiee.— A railway carrier of passengers is 
bound to use every reasonable means jto keep in a safe condition all portions 
of its station platforms and approaches thereto to which passengers or those 
who have purchased tickets with a view of taking passage on its cars, would 
naturally or ordinarily be likely to go. This includes the duty of properly 
lighting at night their depots and approaches two and from the trains.—Bue- 
nemann v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company. Suprem e 
Court, Minnesota, August 21, 18S4. 

Common Caeeiee.—Conteact to Caeey Live Stock.—Release.— 
Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for injury to a horse resulting 
from alleged negligence of defendant company. The contract under which 
the horse was shipped released defendant from “all liability for injuries 
which theanimals or either of them may receive in consequence of any of 
them being wild, vicious, unruly, weak, escaping or maiming themselves or 
each other; or in consequence of heat, suffocation, or other ill effects of b e- 
ing crowded, either upon cars or in yards, or on account of being injured 
by the burning of hay, straw or any other material used for feeding the 
stock, or in any other way, including negligence of said compan y’s 
servants; and also for all loss or damage which may be sustained by reas on 
of any delay in the loading, transportation or delivery of them, or in conse¬ 
quence of insecurity of the cars.” It was proved that the door of the car 
in which the animal was carried, was out of repair and unsafe when used to 
confine and protect live stock and that plaintiff's horse was injured thereb y 
The car was an iron grain car and was subsequently used to carry lumb er 
and passed by an inspector as suitable and sufficient for that purpose . It 
was not shown or alleged that the company did not furnish a sufficient 
number of safe and suitable cars for the transportation of horses, or that 
such cars were not at hand and ready to be used when the shipment was 


59 


made. Held: that plaintiff was not entitled to recover; that as the causes 
of injury specifically mentioned are such as could only occur during the 
process of the shipment and transportation, and the negligence of the de¬ 
fendant’s servants included in the recital naturally refers and is limited to 
a negligence occurring in the same process, if injury arose from a careless 
selection of an insecure car by the servants making up the train, when safe 
cars were provided by the company, or from any other negligence of such 
servants during the process of transportation, the company is freed from 
liability. The company was guilty only of a breach of contract to carry 
safely, and from that it wa3 released by the provision of the contract re¬ 
leasing it from responsibility for any injury arising “from the insecurity of 
the cars.” 89 N. Y., 370. Affirmed.—Wilson v. New York Central & Hudson 
Eiver E. E. Co. Court of Appeals, New York. October 7, 1884. 

Interference by Striking Workmen with a Eaibway in the Hands of 
a Court.—Statement of Facts. —In the matter of the order on Edward 
Doolittle and William Schanbacher to show cause why they should not be 
punished for contempt in interfering with property in the hands of the re¬ 
ceivers of this court. 

The marshal reported to the court that at Hannibal, Mo., he found the 
possession and use of property in the custody of the receivers of the 
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Eailway, heretofore appointed by this court, 
interfered with by bodies of men, who prevented the agents and employes 
of said receivers from operating portions of said property, by spiking and 
blocking the tracks, drawing water from engines, inciting the agents and 
employes of the receivers to quit work, and threatening them with violence 
if they continued in the service of the receivers ; that he gave warning that 
all persons interfering with property in the custody of this court would be 
arrested and punished. He further reported that, in particular, one Edward 
Doolittle had, on the 10th day of March, 1885, prevented James W. Eitchie 
a trainmaster of the said Wabash Eailway, from taking out of a round¬ 
house a number of engines in the custody of the receivers, although noti¬ 
fied that these engines belonged to the Wabash Eailway. Doolittle was 
reported to be a recognized leader of persons engaged in the unlawful acts 
as above stated. The marshal accordingly caused him to be arrested. And 
further, that on the 12th day of March he arrested one John Schanbacher 
for holding an engine upon and for the purpose of blocking the main track, 
over which Wabash trains are run into the city of Hannibal. Schan¬ 
bacher was previously warned that he was interfering with property in the 
custody of this court, but he disregarded the warning and interposed his 
person between the marshal and the engine, saying he would not let the en¬ 
gine go down the road; whereupon the arrest was made. Schanbacher Avas 
also alleged to be an active leader in the “strike ” then in progress. 

The report of the marshal as to the acts of Doolittle was supported by 
the affidavit of James W. Eitchie, a trainmaster of the Wabash Eailway, as 
before stated, which affidavit showed that the engines and freight cars of 



60 


the Wabash Railway, the movement of which Doolittle obstructed, were at 
the time in the yards of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, certain of 
whose employe's it seems were then engaged in a “strike.” The affiant 
stated: “I said to him (Doolittle), T understand that you object to my mov¬ 
ing these engines and this freight. How is this, when your friends and 
associates have consented?’ He replied: ‘We have a point to make on this.’ 
I told him to make his point where it belonged and not on us. I told him 
this was Wabash freight, and the Wabash had nothing to do with this strike 
in any shape or form. He replied they were good ornaments. I asked 
him to get into a car and talk this matter over with me, and he said it was 
too rich for his blood, and I then asked him to walk down the track with me, 
and he said he had not time.” The result was that the movement of the 
nine Wabash engines and about one hundred cars of freight was de¬ 
layed some hours. 

The prisoners, Doolittle and Schanbacher, were accordingly ordered to 
show cause why they should not be attached and punished for contempt of 
court, for their interference with property in the possession of its receivers. 
They filed a reply in writing, alleging that they had not at any time been 
knowingly or willfully in contempt of this court or its officers, or intention¬ 
ally obstructive of the decrees, orders of process of the court, but on the 
contrary had intended to regard and obey the orders of the court so far as 
they knew or understood them. As to the detention of the nine engines in 
the Hannibal yards, they alleged that the trainmaster of the Wabash Rail¬ 
way “cordially” agreed to a delay of several hours, until Doolittle could ob¬ 
tain advice by telegraph from “ our headquarters” at Sedalia. Also, that 
there being a difference of opinion as to which railroad the freight belonged 
to, it was “harmoniously settled” between the trainmaster and the strikers 
that it should be left where it was; that no violence, intimidations or 
threats were used towards the engineers, or any one else, but that the en¬ 
gineers were unwilling to go out without the full consent of the strikers, 
and thus the engineers were detained by the strikers, of whom 
Doolittle admitted that he was one, and also that he acted as 
their “spokesman.” Doolittle denied that he had participated in 
spiking the tracks, drawing water from engines, or that he had 
any previous knowledge that such acts were contemplated. Schan¬ 
bacher admitted that he “objected” to the marshal taking the engine to a 
side track, but alleged that he did so hastily and without appreciating the 
marshal’s authority, and a moment later called to the engineer to go onto 
the side track, when some one in the crowd cried out not to do it. In con¬ 
clusion, both Doolittle and Schanbacher reiterated that they did not at any 
time use threats or violence against any person, whether marshal or other 
person. They admitted that their “zeal in the cause” might have led them 
to commit acts capable of being construed as in contempt of this court, 
but averred that such contempts were without willfulness, malice or intent 
on their part. 


61 


Brewer, J. (orally).—The facts in reference to this case are very ob¬ 
vious. It does not appear that these defendants in the first instance started 
out to obstruct the receivers in their management of the road. In some 
way they had ascertained that the road was in possession of the receivers 
appointed by this court, and that it was not prudent to interfere with them. 
But it is clear that, while engaged in a strike against the Missouri Pacific 
Bailroad, they did interfere with the management of the engine and freight 
cars under the control of such receivers, and did obstruct such receivers in 
carrying on the business of the road placed in their charge by this court. 

Now, while in one sense they cannot be charged with contempt in that 
they intended to obstruct this court and its officers in the discharge of its and 
their duty, yet they placed themselves in this attitude. They engaged in 
an unlawful enterprise, and while so engaged they did interfere with the 
officers of this court in the management of the road which was in their 
hands as receivers. Now, if a party engaged in a lawful undertaking unin¬ 
tentionally interferes with some of the officers of this court and obstructs 
them in the discharge of their duties, this couct is not tenacious of any 
mere prerogative, and would let such action pass almost without notice; 
but where parties are engaged in that which is of itself unlawful, in doing 
that which they have no right to do, and in so doing obstruct the officers 
of this court, although intending no contempt, that is a very different thing. 

Suppose a party of men, and I state this merely as an illustration, com¬ 
bine to commit an assault and battery upon one person, and without in¬ 
tending so to injure, do, through mistake, actually seize and beat a third 
person. Although such beating w'as unintentional, perhaps accidental, yet 
as they were engaged in an unlawful enterprise, it is just the same as though 
they intended that unlawful attack upon the person actually receiving the 
injury. And so here, though these defendants did not set out to obstruct 
the officers of this court and the receivers of the Wabash Company 
in their administration of that property, yet they did set out to ob¬ 
struct some persons in the exercise of their legal rights; they did set out to 
do that which they had no right to do; and this court is justified, indeed it 
is its duty, inasmuch as they did obstruct the officers of this court, to re¬ 
gard it just the same, or nearly the same, as though they started out to ob¬ 
struct the officers of this court, the receivers of the Wabash Kailway Com¬ 
pany. 

Mr. Charles Claflin Allen.—Do I understand your honor to say that the 
act of striking, merely carrying out of the strike, was unlawful? 

The court (Judge Brewnr).—It is not the mere stopping of work them¬ 
selves, but it is preventing the owners of the road from managing their own 
engines, and running their own cars; that is where the wrong comes in; 
anybody has a right to quit work, but in interfering with other persons 
working, and preventing the owners of railroad trains from managing these- 
trains as they see fit, there is where the wrong comes in. 


62 


I believe Judge Drummond, in a series of cases tliat came before him, 
across the river in Illinois, where there was a direct resistance by parties 
engaged in such a strike to the receivers appointed by him, sentenced the 
ringleaders to six months in the county jail. In this case I do not feel as 
though it would be right to treat them exactly as though they occupied 
the same position; and yet, as I said before, I do not think it is a matter 
that can be overlooked; things of this kind are not to be encouraged or 
tolerated, and the sentence will be that they shall be confined in the county 
jail for sixty days, and pay the costs of this attachment. 

Treat, J. (orally).—As far as I am concerned, I should have given a 
severer punishment if the matter had been left solely to me, and I should 
emphasize the statement very strongly, that whilst it must be admitted, and 
no one would admit it more readily than the judges of this court, as to the 
right of every man to determine whether he will engage in this or another 
employment, and would protect him in that right through any proper ju¬ 
dicial proceeding, he must not resort to lawTess measures to injure the 
property or the person of any other party. More particularly is that true 
with regard to the receivers of courts. If there was any just ground of 
complaint, so far as the so-called strikers were concerned, this tribunal was 
open to have them present their matters here, and the court would have 
instructed the receivers with regard to it, and one of the prominent reasons 
why courts are so prompt to punish men who interfere with receivers in the 
custody and control of the property committed to them by law, is the fact 
that any one engaged in employment under them can have ample redress 
by applying to the court with respect thereto. 

Now, instead of coming to this court to make application, as some other 
parties have done—other employes—they chose to engage in a lawless en¬ 
terprise whereby were involved, not only the stoppage of commerce, but 
perhaps a loss of millions of dollars, and merchants and private individuals 
and all classes were injured by this lawless proceeding. And now the party 
comes and says, what? Evasively, “ I did not know that I was interfering 
with the officers of this court;” but he did know that he was interfering with 
property that he has no right to interfere with, and “perchance he over¬ 
stepped the limit and involved himself within the jurisdiction of this 
court; ” further, “ We did not directly by physical force do sundry and di¬ 
vers things; we merely requested other persons to do it.” A specious pre¬ 
tense! The court must be supposed to know, as everybody else does, what 
the object was; it was the threatening intimidation which lay behind the 
whole matter, and hence they are within the rule. “A request” under such 
circumstances was a threat. The court cannot be blinded by such mere 
specious language; the fact is there; the positive fact that here was a direct 
threat and an intimidation. The form of language amounts to nothing. 
Courts don’t stick in the letter. They look at the fact, the act itself, and 
that was the case here. Parties determined lawlessly to stop the commerce 
of the country, so far as these roads were concerned, and to do it by force, 


63 


by threats and by intimidation, and in doing it they interfered with the 
property of this company under the charge of the court, and instead of 
coming to this court, if they had any wrong to be redressed, and asking the 
court to adjust their cause, they took, in other words, the law in their own 
hands, and they must suffer the consequences of doing it. Of course I as¬ 
sent, as I must do, to the lenient punishment prescribed by the circuit 
judge, but if it had been left to me alone, it would have been much severer. 
—Ke Doolittle and Schanbacher. U. S. Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri, March 
18, 1885. 


A WORD ABOUT GRUMBLERS. 

There are chronic grumblers everywhere. There are a great many in the 
railway service. The chronic grumbler finds fault with everything, and it 
is his especial mission to criticise every act of every person in authority; 
and as a rule the better the officer and the more just the order, the harder 
the grumbler grumbles. A feeling of uneasiness and meanness seems to 
pervade the very atmosphere they breathe. We have no reference to the 
bold, independent spirits, whose earnest voices are heard protesting against 
everything that is wrong, and commending everything that is good, from 
whatever source it may come, whether above or below their own official sta¬ 
tions. These moral heroes are the salt of the earth. 

Fault finding with officers is often without cause. There are very many 
unworthy persons placed in authority, who through ignorance, and the lack 
of all those elements of character which fit men to command, provoke an¬ 
tagonisms, and bring upon them the enmity of employes; but the number of 
good and able officers, who, under the most trying circumstances remain 
faithful to honor and duty, is much larger. 

It should never be forgotten that the officer who demands a strict ob¬ 
servance of duty from all, is the faithful friend of the faithful and worthy 
subordinate. The good employe never shirks, and consequently he can de¬ 
rive no advantage from loose discipline. When the unworthy employe, 
taking advantage of a loose principle, shirks his work, it is always at the 
expense of better men, who must either directly or indirectly share the 
blame for the faults of the w'orse. Though the voice of the strict disciplin¬ 
arian may sometimes seem stern, it should grate only upon the ears of the 
unworthy, while in its undertone there is ever a touch of kindness and sym¬ 
pathy for those who are faithful, brave, and true in life’s battle. The first 
duty of the officer, as of the employe, is to silently and faithfully execute all 
orders from a superior authority. When his conscience prohibits him from 
doing this, his only alternative is to resign. 

If the employe is dissatisfied with the occupation of his choosing, it 
would be well for him to strike a balance sheet of his case. Place upon one 
side capital invested, viz.: experience, judgment, and ability, in the acquir- 



64 


ing of which, he was doubtless earning a small salary. Upon the other, 
place his salary, opportunities for promotion, the enviable record attain - 
able, the many little ways in which he may become useful to a less fortunate 
brother, and then, if after a careful analysis of the situation he still feels 
aggrieved, it is his duty to resign; not, however, anticipating his resigna¬ 
tion will be rejected, as nothing of the kind will occur. 


A STATION AGENT’S EXASPERATIONS. 

The exasperations of the average station agent are many. To the sym¬ 
pathetic reader the following extract from an eastern journal is submitted. 
The agent, while giving but his experience, voiced the sentiment of thou¬ 
sands occupying similar positions. He says: 

I have been employed thirteen years as station agent at a way station 
where six passenger trains stop daily, two of which are mixed trains carry¬ 
ing both passengers and freight. I am obliged not only to have supervision 
over the affairs of the railroad company at this station, but also to do the 
work, which consists of telegraphing, selling tickets, checking baggage, way- 
billing and helping to handle freight, billing and handling express matter, 
and carrying the mail bags between the station and the postoffice, a few rods 
distant. “Something to do!” I think I hear you say; and assure you there is 
something to do at the time when the train is expected. Freight, way-bills 
and reports are to be made ready, tickets to be sold, baggage to check and 
place near where the baggage-car is to be stopped, the mail to be brought 
from the postoffice, etc. It not infrequently happens, also, that as the train 
is running in, and all is bustle and confusion, some passenger—who has 
been sitting quietly in the waiting-room during the last half-hour, while 
others have been purchasing their tickets and having their baggage checked 
in readiness for the train—comes rushing to the ticket window just as the 
agent is locking his office door to go out and attend to his train duties, and 
demands a ticket to some point to which the fare is thirty-nine cents. He 
throws down a five dollar bill, winch the agent has difficulty in changing, 
and he wants a trunk checked besides. At the same instant another man 
announces that he wants a message sent before the train starts, and w'ould 
like to have the agent w T rite it for him, as he is a “ little out of the hang of 
writing.” A third rushes up with some money loose in his hand and orders 
the agent to put it up and “send it by express on this train, sure.” Just 
then the conductor steps in, and in a voice that fairly quavers with impa¬ 
tience, asks the agent “ why in thunder ” he isn’t outside to tell the people 
what car to board? He gratuitously adds the cheering information that “the 
train can’t wait there all day, and wouldn’t wait if it could,” which sets the 
passengers frantic instantly. Two or three of the most excitable ones grab 
the agent’s sleeve, and ask if he is certain that is the train they are to take. 
Altogether, the agent walks not in the path of enchanted ease, and if he does 
lose his temper sometimes, much ought to be forgiven him, since he suffers 
much. 



RAILWAY MILEAGE OF THE WORLD. 


Ecuador . 

Namaqualand.... 

Tasmania. 

Ceylon . 

Tunis. 

Turkey in Asia 

Philippines. 

Uruguay . 

Java. 

Queensland . 

Cuba. 

Turkey. 

Algeria. 

Roumania. 

Egypt . 

Norway . 

Portugal. 

South Australia. . 

Denmark. 

New South Wales 
Victoria . 


Chili. 1,374 

New Zealand. 1,374 

Cape Colony. 1,453 

Netherlands. 1,512 

Argentine Republic. 1,686 

Switzerland. 1,735 

Peru. 2,030 

Belgium. ... 2,683 

Mexico. 3,343 

Sweden . 3,927 

Brazil. 4,750 

Spain.. 5,600 

Italy . 5,800 

Canada. 9,060 

India. 10,832 

Austria-Hungary. 12,321 

Russia . 17,000 

France. 18,023 

Great Britain and Ireland. . . 18,668 

Germany. 22,300 

United States. 128^407 


76 

95 

172 

178 

200 

250 

279 

418 

499 

867 

871 

889 

895 

922 

942 

972 

1,039 

1,054 

1,105 

1,268 

1,355 












































MEMORANDUM. 


THE RAILWAY 


STATION AGENTS’ JOURNAL, 

PUBLISHED BY THE 

STATION AGENTS’ PUBLISHING GO., 

p. o. BOX 285. INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 


The Journal is published monthly in the exclusive interest of 
Station Agents, and is designed to serve as a department medium 
for the interchange of thought on all matters pertaining to station 
service. Every number is filled with fresh, interesting, and impor¬ 
tant reading matter, which commends it at once as an indispensable 
publication of the service. 


Subscription Price per annum, in advance, - - $1.00 


As an advertising medium the JOURNAL is unsurpassed 
by any publication of its kind; going as it does to Station 
Agents in every StaJ:e, Territory, and Province of America. 
Address as above, 

G. W. CRAFFT, Manager. 





THE RAILWAY 


Station Agents’ Association, 


Designed to unite all Station Agents of the American Con¬ 
tinent in a fraternal union, having for its objects the development of 
social and business interests, and the enjoyment of the usual bene¬ 
fits arising from mutual co-operation. 

Agents residing in States having no Division, will be admitted 
into the National Association on application to the National Sec¬ 
retary. Where Divisions have been formed, application for mem¬ 
bership should be made to the State Secretary. 

Membership fee, $3.00; Six months’ Dues in advance, $1.50; Total, $4.50 


NATIONAL OFFICERS. 


GEORGE PETRY, Pres., 

Shelbyville, Ky. 
O. P. RICKARD, Sec’y, 

Merrillan, Wis. 


G. F. TALMADGE, V. P., 

Hastings, Minn. 
G. P. SPINK, Treas., 

Princeton, Ky. 


EXECUTIVE BOARD. 


G. F. TAPMADGE, Chairman, 

T. J. KEAN, FRANK BECKPEY, 

E. P. HOBART, C. H. ARMISTEAD, 

W. G. PEWIS, P. A. CPARK. 

G. P. SPINK, 

Charters for State organizations will be granted on the applica¬ 
tion of fifteen members. 

The third annual meeting of the National Association will be 
held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, third Wednesday in July, 1887. 

0. L. RICKARD, National Secretary. 


GEO. PETRY, 

O. P. RICKARD, 
J. C. DOWNING, 






THE RAILWAY AGE 


THE LEADING RAILWAY PAPER 
OF THE WORLD. 


It has separate departments devoted to general railway news 
and topics, including CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MECHANICS, 
TRAFFIC, TRAVEL, LATEST DECISIONS OF RAILWAY CASES, 
ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ILLUS¬ 
TRATED ARTICLES, SKETCHES OF PROMINENT RAILWAY MEN, 
EMPLOYES, PERSONALS AND MISCELLANEOUS RAILWAY INFOR¬ 
MATION, besides the editorial discussion of RAILWAY PROBLEMS 
AND EVENTS. 


ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF 
STATION AGENTS. 


SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $4.00 A YEAR. 


Address , 

E. H. TALBOTT, 

PRESIDENT AND MANAGER, 

HOME INSURANCE BUILDING, 


CHICAGO. 










LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


THE ADVANTAGES( 0 033 266 421*9 

MONON ROUTE, 

X*. KT. A. Cb C. H-y. 

SURPASS THOSE OF ALU OTHERS. 

Passengers via this route and connections to NEW ORLEANS, ATLANTA, JACK¬ 
SONVILLE and all tlie Winter Cities of the South, are enabled 
to make the entire trip in luxurious 

THROUGH COACHES AND PULLMAN BUFFET SLEEPERS, 

Passing' through the most populous and historical parts of the South, visiting 
enroute the Cities of 


DEARBORN STATION, CHICAGO TERMINAL. 


LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI, NASHVILLE, MOBILE, MEMPHIS, 
CHATTANOOGA, Etc., and allowing stop-over 
at Mammoth Cave, Ky. 


Single Trip and Tourists’ Tickets via the MONON ROUTE can he purchased 
at all Coupon Offices in the North and West. 


Rates, routes and Pullman accommodations, etc., furnished on application to 

L. E. SESSIONS, T. P. A. EDW. BARTON, P. A. 

Minneapolis, Minn. Lincoln, Neb. 

or, E. 0. McCORMICK, Gen’l Pass. Agent, Chicago. 







































